Clinician Reviews

TOPLINE:

In a multinational phase 3 trial, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), with a comparable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multinational phase 3 trial, conducted between September 2018 and July 2022, compared imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam with piperacillin-tazobactam for HABP and VABP to support its use across multiple countries.
• Overall, 270 patients with HABP or VABP (mean age, 57.6 years; 73.3% men) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 hours over 30 minutes for 7-14 days.
• Both treatment groups included critically ill patients, with 54.5% and 55.1% of patients in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively, having an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 15.
• The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical and microbiological responses, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (adjusted difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, −1.5-12.4; P = .024 for noninferiority).
• At the end of treatment, the rates of a favorable clinical response were comparable between the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (71.6%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (68.4%) groups.
• After treatment, microbiological response rates were 48.8% in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam group, whereas the rates were 47.9% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
• The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar across the treatment groups, with diarrhea, increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and abnormal hepatic function being the most common events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the use of IMI/REL [imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam] in MDR [multidrug-resistant] infections globally, including to expand the range of available treatments for critically ill patients with HABP/VABP in China, and provide additional data to inform the World Health Organization’s MDR pathogen strategy,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Junjie Li, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with immunosuppression and those on intermittent hemodialysis, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Some authors served as employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, New Jersey, and MSD, China.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a multinational phase 3 trial, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), with a comparable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multinational phase 3 trial, conducted between September 2018 and July 2022, compared imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam with piperacillin-tazobactam for HABP and VABP to support its use across multiple countries.
• Overall, 270 patients with HABP or VABP (mean age, 57.6 years; 73.3% men) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 hours over 30 minutes for 7-14 days.
• Both treatment groups included critically ill patients, with 54.5% and 55.1% of patients in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively, having an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 15.
• The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical and microbiological responses, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (adjusted difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, −1.5-12.4; P = .024 for noninferiority).
• At the end of treatment, the rates of a favorable clinical response were comparable between the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (71.6%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (68.4%) groups.
• After treatment, microbiological response rates were 48.8% in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam group, whereas the rates were 47.9% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
• The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar across the treatment groups, with diarrhea, increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and abnormal hepatic function being the most common events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the use of IMI/REL [imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam] in MDR [multidrug-resistant] infections globally, including to expand the range of available treatments for critically ill patients with HABP/VABP in China, and provide additional data to inform the World Health Organization’s MDR pathogen strategy,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Junjie Li, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with immunosuppression and those on intermittent hemodialysis, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Some authors served as employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, New Jersey, and MSD, China.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a multinational phase 3 trial, imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam demonstrated noninferiority to piperacillin-tazobactam in treating critically ill patients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP), with a comparable safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multinational phase 3 trial, conducted between September 2018 and July 2022, compared imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam with piperacillin-tazobactam for HABP and VABP to support its use across multiple countries.
• Overall, 270 patients with HABP or VABP (mean age, 57.6 years; 73.3% men) were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (500 mg/250 mg) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4000 mg/500 mg) every 6 hours over 30 minutes for 7-14 days.
• Both treatment groups included critically ill patients, with 54.5% and 55.1% of patients in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups, respectively, having an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥ 15.
• The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical and microbiological responses, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam was noninferior to piperacillin-tazobactam in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality (adjusted difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, −1.5-12.4; P = .024 for noninferiority).
• At the end of treatment, the rates of a favorable clinical response were comparable between the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (71.6%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (68.4%) groups.
• After treatment, microbiological response rates were 48.8% in the imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam group, whereas the rates were 47.9% in the piperacillin-tazobactam group.
• The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar across the treatment groups, with diarrhea, increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, and abnormal hepatic function being the most common events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the use of IMI/REL [imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam] in MDR [multidrug-resistant] infections globally, including to expand the range of available treatments for critically ill patients with HABP/VABP in China, and provide additional data to inform the World Health Organization’s MDR pathogen strategy,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Junjie Li, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online on December 12, 2024, in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with immunosuppression and those on intermittent hemodialysis, limiting the generalizability of the results to these populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Some authors served as employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, New Jersey, and MSD, China.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stem cell transplantation tames some refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis–related lung disease that does not respond to other treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Retrospective cohort study of 13 children with refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis–related lung disease (sJIA-LD) who had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
• Children whose median age was 9 years at transplantation underwent HSCT at nine hospitals in the United States and Europe between January 2018 and October 2022, with a median follow-up of 16 months.
• Outcomes included transplant-related complications, pulmonary outcomes (eg, oxygen dependence and chest CT findings), and overall outcomes (eg, complete response, partial response, and death).

TAKEAWAY:

• Five patients developed acute graft vs host disease of varying grades, but none experienced chronic disease.
• All nine surviving patients achieved a complete response at the last follow-up, with no sJIA characteristics or need for immunosuppressive therapy or supplemental oxygen.
• Four patients died from complications including cytomegalovirus pneumonitis (n = 2), intracranial hemorrhage (n = 1), and progressive sJIA-LD (n = 1).
• Of six patients who underwent posttransplant chest CT, three had improved lung health, two had stable lung disease, and one experienced worsening lung disease, ultimately resulting in death.

IN PRACTICE:

“Allogeneic HSCT should be considered for treatment-refractory sJIA-LD,” the authors wrote.

“Efforts are being pursued for earlier recognition of patients with sJIA-LD at risk of adverse reactions to biologics. Early detection should help to avoid repeated treatments that are less effective and possibly deleterious and consider therapeutic approaches (eg, anti–[interleukin]-18 or [interferon]-delta–targeted treatments) that might act as a bridge therapy to control disease activity before HSCT,” wrote the author of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

Michael G. Matt, MD, and Daniel Drozdov, MD, led the study, which was published online on December 20, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included sampling bias and heterogeneity in clinical follow-up. The small sample size made it difficult to identify variables affecting survival and the achievement of a complete response. Additionally, many patients had relatively short follow-up periods.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving advisory board fees, consulting fees, honoraria, grant funds, and stocks and shares from various research institutes and pharmaceutical organizations.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stem cell transplantation tames some refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis–related lung disease that does not respond to other treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Retrospective cohort study of 13 children with refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis–related lung disease (sJIA-LD) who had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
• Children whose median age was 9 years at transplantation underwent HSCT at nine hospitals in the United States and Europe between January 2018 and October 2022, with a median follow-up of 16 months.
• Outcomes included transplant-related complications, pulmonary outcomes (eg, oxygen dependence and chest CT findings), and overall outcomes (eg, complete response, partial response, and death).

TAKEAWAY:

• Five patients developed acute graft vs host disease of varying grades, but none experienced chronic disease.
• All nine surviving patients achieved a complete response at the last follow-up, with no sJIA characteristics or need for immunosuppressive therapy or supplemental oxygen.
• Four patients died from complications including cytomegalovirus pneumonitis (n = 2), intracranial hemorrhage (n = 1), and progressive sJIA-LD (n = 1).
• Of six patients who underwent posttransplant chest CT, three had improved lung health, two had stable lung disease, and one experienced worsening lung disease, ultimately resulting in death.

IN PRACTICE:

“Allogeneic HSCT should be considered for treatment-refractory sJIA-LD,” the authors wrote.

“Efforts are being pursued for earlier recognition of patients with sJIA-LD at risk of adverse reactions to biologics. Early detection should help to avoid repeated treatments that are less effective and possibly deleterious and consider therapeutic approaches (eg, anti–[interleukin]-18 or [interferon]-delta–targeted treatments) that might act as a bridge therapy to control disease activity before HSCT,” wrote the author of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

Michael G. Matt, MD, and Daniel Drozdov, MD, led the study, which was published online on December 20, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included sampling bias and heterogeneity in clinical follow-up. The small sample size made it difficult to identify variables affecting survival and the achievement of a complete response. Additionally, many patients had relatively short follow-up periods.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving advisory board fees, consulting fees, honoraria, grant funds, and stocks and shares from various research institutes and pharmaceutical organizations.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stem cell transplantation tames some refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis–related lung disease that does not respond to other treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Retrospective cohort study of 13 children with refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis–related lung disease (sJIA-LD) who had allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
• Children whose median age was 9 years at transplantation underwent HSCT at nine hospitals in the United States and Europe between January 2018 and October 2022, with a median follow-up of 16 months.
• Outcomes included transplant-related complications, pulmonary outcomes (eg, oxygen dependence and chest CT findings), and overall outcomes (eg, complete response, partial response, and death).

TAKEAWAY:

• Five patients developed acute graft vs host disease of varying grades, but none experienced chronic disease.
• All nine surviving patients achieved a complete response at the last follow-up, with no sJIA characteristics or need for immunosuppressive therapy or supplemental oxygen.
• Four patients died from complications including cytomegalovirus pneumonitis (n = 2), intracranial hemorrhage (n = 1), and progressive sJIA-LD (n = 1).
• Of six patients who underwent posttransplant chest CT, three had improved lung health, two had stable lung disease, and one experienced worsening lung disease, ultimately resulting in death.

IN PRACTICE:

“Allogeneic HSCT should be considered for treatment-refractory sJIA-LD,” the authors wrote.

“Efforts are being pursued for earlier recognition of patients with sJIA-LD at risk of adverse reactions to biologics. Early detection should help to avoid repeated treatments that are less effective and possibly deleterious and consider therapeutic approaches (eg, anti–[interleukin]-18 or [interferon]-delta–targeted treatments) that might act as a bridge therapy to control disease activity before HSCT,” wrote the author of an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

Michael G. Matt, MD, and Daniel Drozdov, MD, led the study, which was published online on December 20, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included sampling bias and heterogeneity in clinical follow-up. The small sample size made it difficult to identify variables affecting survival and the achievement of a complete response. Additionally, many patients had relatively short follow-up periods.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving advisory board fees, consulting fees, honoraria, grant funds, and stocks and shares from various research institutes and pharmaceutical organizations.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the obesity treatment tirzepatide (Zepbound, Eli Lilly) for treating moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults with obesity.

The new indication is for use in combination with reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The once-weekly injectable is the first-ever drug treatment for OSA. Until now, OSA treatment has focused on mechanical support during sleep in the form of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. 

“Today’s approval marks the first drug treatment option for certain patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” said Sally Seymour, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonology, Allergy, and Critical Care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “This is a major step forward for patients with obstructive sleep apnea.”

Excess weight is a major risk factor for OSA, in which the upper airways become blocked multiple times during sleep and obstruct breathing. The condition causes loud snoring, recurrent awakenings, and daytime sleepiness. It is also associated with cardiovascular disease.

Tirzepatide, a dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist, was initially approved with brand name Mounjaro in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and as Zepbound for weight loss in November 2023.

The new OSA approval was based on two phase 3, double-blind randomized controlled trials, SURMOUNT-OSA, in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA, conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. Results from both were presented in June 2024 at the annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association and were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The first trial enrolled 469 participants who were unable or unwilling to use PAP therapy, while the second included 234 who had been using PAP for at least 3 months and planned to continue during the trial. In both, the participants randomly received either 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide or placebo once weekly for 52 weeks.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/h on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and a mean of 51.5 events/h. By 52 weeks, those randomized to tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/h, compared with 4-6 fewer events/h for those taking placebo. In addition, significantly more of those on tirzepatide achieved OSA remission or severity reduction to mild.

Those randomized to tirzepatide also averaged up to 20% weight loss, significantly more than with placebo. “The improvement in AHI in participants with OSA is likely related to body weight reduction with Zepbound,” according to an FDA statement.

Side effects of tirzepatide include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal discomfort and pain, injection site reactions, fatigue, hypersensitivity reactions (typically fever and rash), burping, hair loss, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

In an editorial accompanying The New England Journal of Medicine publication of the SURMOUNT-OSA results, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, wrote: “The potential incorporation of tirzepatide into treatment algorithms for obstructive sleep apnea should include consideration of the challenges of adherence to treatment and the imperative to address racial disparities in medical care.”

Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and medical director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program, pointed out that suboptimal adherence to continuous PAP therapy has been a major limitation, but that adherence to the GLP-1 drug class has also been suboptimal.

“Although adherence to tirzepatide therapy in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was high, real-world evidence suggests that nearly 50% of patients who begin treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity discontinue therapy within 12 months. Thus, it is likely that any incorporation of tirzepatide into treatment pathways for obstructive sleep apnea will not diminish the importance of long-term strategies to optimize adherence to treatment.”

Moreover, Patel noted, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Patel reported consulting for Apnimed, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Lilly USA, NovaResp Technologies, Philips Respironics, and Powell Mansfield. He is a fiduciary officer of BreathPA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the obesity treatment tirzepatide (Zepbound, Eli Lilly) for treating moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults with obesity.

The new indication is for use in combination with reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The once-weekly injectable is the first-ever drug treatment for OSA. Until now, OSA treatment has focused on mechanical support during sleep in the form of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. 

“Today’s approval marks the first drug treatment option for certain patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” said Sally Seymour, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonology, Allergy, and Critical Care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “This is a major step forward for patients with obstructive sleep apnea.”

Excess weight is a major risk factor for OSA, in which the upper airways become blocked multiple times during sleep and obstruct breathing. The condition causes loud snoring, recurrent awakenings, and daytime sleepiness. It is also associated with cardiovascular disease.

Tirzepatide, a dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist, was initially approved with brand name Mounjaro in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and as Zepbound for weight loss in November 2023.

The new OSA approval was based on two phase 3, double-blind randomized controlled trials, SURMOUNT-OSA, in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA, conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. Results from both were presented in June 2024 at the annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association and were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The first trial enrolled 469 participants who were unable or unwilling to use PAP therapy, while the second included 234 who had been using PAP for at least 3 months and planned to continue during the trial. In both, the participants randomly received either 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide or placebo once weekly for 52 weeks.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/h on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and a mean of 51.5 events/h. By 52 weeks, those randomized to tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/h, compared with 4-6 fewer events/h for those taking placebo. In addition, significantly more of those on tirzepatide achieved OSA remission or severity reduction to mild.

Those randomized to tirzepatide also averaged up to 20% weight loss, significantly more than with placebo. “The improvement in AHI in participants with OSA is likely related to body weight reduction with Zepbound,” according to an FDA statement.

Side effects of tirzepatide include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal discomfort and pain, injection site reactions, fatigue, hypersensitivity reactions (typically fever and rash), burping, hair loss, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

In an editorial accompanying The New England Journal of Medicine publication of the SURMOUNT-OSA results, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, wrote: “The potential incorporation of tirzepatide into treatment algorithms for obstructive sleep apnea should include consideration of the challenges of adherence to treatment and the imperative to address racial disparities in medical care.”

Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and medical director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program, pointed out that suboptimal adherence to continuous PAP therapy has been a major limitation, but that adherence to the GLP-1 drug class has also been suboptimal.

“Although adherence to tirzepatide therapy in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was high, real-world evidence suggests that nearly 50% of patients who begin treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity discontinue therapy within 12 months. Thus, it is likely that any incorporation of tirzepatide into treatment pathways for obstructive sleep apnea will not diminish the importance of long-term strategies to optimize adherence to treatment.”

Moreover, Patel noted, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Patel reported consulting for Apnimed, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Lilly USA, NovaResp Technologies, Philips Respironics, and Powell Mansfield. He is a fiduciary officer of BreathPA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the obesity treatment tirzepatide (Zepbound, Eli Lilly) for treating moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in adults with obesity.

The new indication is for use in combination with reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The once-weekly injectable is the first-ever drug treatment for OSA. Until now, OSA treatment has focused on mechanical support during sleep in the form of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. 

“Today’s approval marks the first drug treatment option for certain patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” said Sally Seymour, MD, director of the Division of Pulmonology, Allergy, and Critical Care in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “This is a major step forward for patients with obstructive sleep apnea.”

Excess weight is a major risk factor for OSA, in which the upper airways become blocked multiple times during sleep and obstruct breathing. The condition causes loud snoring, recurrent awakenings, and daytime sleepiness. It is also associated with cardiovascular disease.

Tirzepatide, a dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist, was initially approved with brand name Mounjaro in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and as Zepbound for weight loss in November 2023.

The new OSA approval was based on two phase 3, double-blind randomized controlled trials, SURMOUNT-OSA, in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA, conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. Results from both were presented in June 2024 at the annual Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association and were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The first trial enrolled 469 participants who were unable or unwilling to use PAP therapy, while the second included 234 who had been using PAP for at least 3 months and planned to continue during the trial. In both, the participants randomly received either 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide or placebo once weekly for 52 weeks.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/h on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and a mean of 51.5 events/h. By 52 weeks, those randomized to tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/h, compared with 4-6 fewer events/h for those taking placebo. In addition, significantly more of those on tirzepatide achieved OSA remission or severity reduction to mild.

Those randomized to tirzepatide also averaged up to 20% weight loss, significantly more than with placebo. “The improvement in AHI in participants with OSA is likely related to body weight reduction with Zepbound,” according to an FDA statement.

Side effects of tirzepatide include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, abdominal discomfort and pain, injection site reactions, fatigue, hypersensitivity reactions (typically fever and rash), burping, hair loss, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

In an editorial accompanying The New England Journal of Medicine publication of the SURMOUNT-OSA results, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, wrote: “The potential incorporation of tirzepatide into treatment algorithms for obstructive sleep apnea should include consideration of the challenges of adherence to treatment and the imperative to address racial disparities in medical care.”

Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and medical director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program, pointed out that suboptimal adherence to continuous PAP therapy has been a major limitation, but that adherence to the GLP-1 drug class has also been suboptimal.

“Although adherence to tirzepatide therapy in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was high, real-world evidence suggests that nearly 50% of patients who begin treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity discontinue therapy within 12 months. Thus, it is likely that any incorporation of tirzepatide into treatment pathways for obstructive sleep apnea will not diminish the importance of long-term strategies to optimize adherence to treatment.”

Moreover, Patel noted, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Patel reported consulting for Apnimed, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Lilly USA, NovaResp Technologies, Philips Respironics, and Powell Mansfield. He is a fiduciary officer of BreathPA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?

Short answer: No. At least not yet.

The longer answer goes something like this:

A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.

“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”

This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.

Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.

“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.

“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.

Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.

It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.

AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.

 

New Windows into Protein Dynamics

By predicting protein structural details, AlphaFold models also made it possible to predict pockets where drugs could bind.

A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”

Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.

“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”

To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.

“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.

A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.

 

Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery 

Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.

Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.

Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.

“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.

PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.

“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.

This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.

The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.

PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.

“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.

Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.

“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”

 

And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.

First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.

“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”

Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.

“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?

Short answer: No. At least not yet.

The longer answer goes something like this:

A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.

“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”

This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.

Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.

“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.

“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.

Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.

It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.

AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.

 

New Windows into Protein Dynamics

By predicting protein structural details, AlphaFold models also made it possible to predict pockets where drugs could bind.

A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”

Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.

“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”

To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.

“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.

A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.

 

Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery 

Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.

Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.

Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.

“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.

PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.

“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.

This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.

The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.

PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.

“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.

Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.

“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”

 

And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.

First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.

“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”

Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.

“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?

Short answer: No. At least not yet.

The longer answer goes something like this:

A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.

“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”

This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.

Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.

“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.

“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.

Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.

It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.

AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.

 

New Windows into Protein Dynamics

By predicting protein structural details, AlphaFold models also made it possible to predict pockets where drugs could bind.

A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”

Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.

“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”

To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.

“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.

A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.

 

Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery 

Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.

Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.

Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.

“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.

PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.

“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.

This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.

The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.

PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.

“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.

Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.

“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”

 

And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.

First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.

“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”

Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.

“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence is mounting that new therapies already used to treat gut diseases, type 2 diabetes, and obesity may help people with alcohol use disorder (AUD).

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, first used to treat diabetes and now widely used for weight loss, and fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs), used to treat diseases such as recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, are advancing in clinical trials as potential options for treating AUD.

 

AUD Affects 28.9 Million People in the United States

In 2023, 28.9 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States had AUD (10.2% of the people in this age group). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three medical therapies: Acamprosate, naltrexone, and disulfiram to help keep people with the disorder from returning to heavy drinking. Acamprosate’s mechanism of action is not clear, but it is thought to modulate and normalize alcohol-related changes in brain activity, thereby reducing withdrawal symptoms. Naltrexone blocks opioid receptors to reduce alcohol cravings. Disulfiram causes a toxic physical reaction when mixed with alcohol.

Some with AUD also benefit from behavioral therapies and support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But for others, nothing has worked, and that’s part of the reason Lorenzo Leggio, MD, PhD, a scientist in the field of alcohol addiction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told this news organization that this is the “most exciting moment” for AUD treatment in his more than 2 decades of research in this area.

 

GLP-1 Agonists Showing Consistent Results

GLP-1 receptor agonists work by modulating the brain’s reward pathways, including the areas that regulate cravings and motivation.

“By dampening the reward signals associated with alcohol consumption, GLP-1 agonists may reduce cravings and heavy drinking episodes,” Fares Qeadan, PhD, MS, associate professor of biostatistics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, told this news organization.

“The unique aspect of GLP-1 agonists is their ability to target both metabolic and reward systems in the brain,” he said. While naltrexone or acamprosate blocks the effects of alcohol or reduces withdrawal symptoms, “GLP-1 agonists approach addiction through a broader mechanism, potentially addressing underlying factors that contribute to cravings and compulsive behaviors,” he said.

As part of a study published in October in Addiction, Qeadan’s team found that people with AUD who were prescribed GLP-1 agonists had a 50% lower rate of severe intoxication than those who were not prescribed those medications.

“While this is observational and not yet definitive, it highlights the potential of these drugs to complement existing treatments for AUD,” he said.

Another study, a nationwide cohort study published in JAMA Psychiatry, found that using the GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide was linked to a lower risk for AUD-related hospitalizations than traditional AUD medications.

A systematic review, published last month in eClinical Medicine, concluded that, though there is little high-quality evidence demonstrating the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on alcohol use, “subgroup analysis from two [randomized, controlled trials] and supporting data from four observational studies suggest that GLP-1 [receptor agonists] may reduce alcohol consumption and improve outcomes in some individuals.”

Studying individual differences in response may have implications for personalized medicine, Qeadan said, as treatments could be tailored to those most likely to benefit, such as people with both metabolic dysfunction and AUD.

“These medications may offer hope for patients who struggle with addiction and have not responded to traditional therapies,” Qeadan said.

 

Exploring FMT as AUD Treatment

FMT is also a new research focus for treating AUD. Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist and liver specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, is leading the Intestinal Microbiota Transplant in Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease (IMPACT) trial.

AUD has been linked with gut microbial alterations that worsen with cirrhosis. Research has shown that alcohol consumption changes the diversity of bacteria and can lead to bacterial overgrowth and progression of alcohol-associated liver disease.

FMT has been effective in rebalancing gut bacteria by transferring healthy stool from screened donors into patients who have developed an overgrowth of harmful bacteria. In the IMPACT trial, participants, who have not previously received traditional treatment for AUD or for whom treatment has not worked, are randomized either to the oral treatment capsule, which contains freeze-dried stool from a donor with healthy gut bacteria, or placebo.

The trial, sponsored by the NIH, is halfway through its target enrollment of 80.

In a previous smaller, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, also led by Bajaj and published in Hepatology, 9 of the 10 volunteers who had severe AUD and cirrhosis experienced fewer alcohol cravings and had lower consumption after 15 days. Only three of the placebo participants saw similar improvements. Those who received the microbiota transplant also had fewer AUD-related events over 6 months.

Bajaj said that, if trials show FMT is safe and effective, he envisions the treatment as one tool in a multidisciplinary, integrated clinic that would include a hepatologist and mental health clinicians.

One benefit of the FMT treatment approach is it is given once or twice only, rather than administered regularly.

 

Current Treatments Work, But More are Needed

Leggio, who is clinical director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, said: “We know that alcohol use disorder, and addiction in general, is a brain disease. We also know that the brain does not work in isolation. The brain is constantly interacting with the rest of the body, including with the gut.”

Leggio said it’s important to note that the three FDA-approved medications do work for alcohol addiction. He said they work as well as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and beta-blockers for chronic heart failure.

But there are only three, and they don’t work for everyone, he noted. Those are among the reasons developing new treatments is important. New treatments could be used as an alternative or in combination with already approved treatments.

FMT is in “the very early stages” of trials testing its use for AUD, Leggio noted, adding that the studies by Bajaj’s team are among the very few addressing gut dysbiosis in AUD, and all have involved small numbers of patients. “It’s promising. It’s intriguing. It’s exciting. But we are just at the beginning.”

 

Results Consistent Across Species, Labs

GLP-1 agonists are further along in trials but still not ready for prescribing for AUD, Leggio said. The positive results have been consistent across species, different labs, and different research teams around the world.

Researchers have also explored through electronic health record emulation trials whether people already taking GLP-1 agonists for diabetes or obesity drink less alcohol compared with matched cohorts not taking GLP-1s. “They consistently show that the people who are on GLP-1s drink less,” he said.

“[Emulation trials] don’t replace the need for randomized controlled trials, Leggio noted. Leggio’s team is currently working on a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial studying GLP-1s in relation to AUD.

 

New Directions 20-Year Highlight

This whole line of research represents “new hope” and has many implications, Leggio said. “I have been in this business for 20-plus years, and I think this is themost exciting moment when we have a very promising target in GLP-1s.”

Regardless of efficacy, he said, the focus on GLP-1 agonists and FMT for AUD has people talking more about addiction and the brain-body connection rather than assuming AUD is a result of poor choices and “bad behavior.”

The momentum of new treatments could also lead to patients and physicians having conversations about existing treatments.

“Hopefully, this momentum will help us destigmatize addiction, and by destigmatizing addiction, there will be an uptick in use of currently approved medications,” Leggio said.

Qeadan, Bajaj, and Leggio reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For people with obesity or type 2 diabetes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists (including Mounjaro, Wegovy, and Ozempic) have been labeled miracle drugs. But they aren’t miraculous for everyone. Research indicates a significant portion of people discontinue using them within a year.

The main problems with GLP-1 agonists are that they are expensive and have a fairly high rate of side effects — such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation. Another big one is muscle loss.

A new study, published in Nature, shows a potential alternative to GLP-1 agonists with fewer side effects, at least in mice and nonhuman primates.

This lack of side effects, particularly in how the potential drug causes no muscle loss — and in fact engages muscle for some of its effect — sets it apart and makes it a potential alternative to GLP-1s. The key is not just reducing appetite but also increasing energy expenditure.

 

How It Works

The new approach targets a protein called NK2R — a member of the neurokinin receptor family, which has a role in a variety of physiological processes, including pain sensation, anxiety, and inflammation. 

“We were looking to see genetic linkages to metabolic health, and there NK2R was,” said Zach Gerhart-Hines, PhD, a professor studying molecular metabolism at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and principal investigator of the study. The group then created a few long-acting agonists that are selective for NK2R. So far, they’ve tested them in mice and nonhuman primates.

“The data on new medicines targeting NK2R is very promising and highlights the potential of both reducing food intake and increasing energy expenditure,” said Daniel Drucker, MD, an endocrinologist and researcher at Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto who was not involved in the study.

“The drug activates a certain region in the hindbrain of the animal, which is controlling food intake, and it does so by reducing appetite without increasing nausea or vomiting,” explained Frederike Sass, a research assistant at the University of Copenhagen in Copenhagen, Denmark, who led the study.

Gerhart-Hines said that even at the highest dose, there were no incidents of vomiting among the nonhuman primates. Mice can’t vomit, but there are ways to tell if they feel unwell from a drug. One way researchers test that is to start feeding the mice sweetened water at the same time they’re given a drug. Then later, when the mice are no longer on the drug, they’re given a choice between sweetened and unsweetened water. If they weren’t feeling well on the drug, they’ll choose plain water because they associate the sweet water with feeling bad, otherwise mice prefer sweet water. Sass said that with the NK2R agonist, they continued to drink sweet water after the treatment, whereas when they gave the mice semaglutide, the mice preferred plain water posttreatment.

The researchers also monitored the animals’ psychological health, as NK2R has been associated with anxiety, but they observed no behavioral changes.

 

The Key Mechanism at Work

One big question is how the NK2R agonists work. The amphetamines people used for weight loss during the 1950s and 1960s worked by making people more active. GLP-1 agonists reduce appetite and lower blood sugar. This is not that. In their studies with animals, the researchers didn’t observe that the animals were more active nor were there changes in other biomarkers like insulin. So far, the main difference they found with the NK2R agonists is an increase in thermogenesis in certain muscles.

Another benefit of the NK2R treatments is that they don’t seem to have a big impact on lean mass — the nonfat component of body weight, namely muscle, bones, and organs. Studies indicate that 25%-39% of weight loss on GLP-1 agonists is lost muscle. According to DEXA scans of the mice, Gerhart-Hines said they observed no lean mass loss. (In mice, he noted, GLP-1 agonists can cause up to 50% lean mass loss).

And for people with both diabetes and obesity, “what we found with NK2R is that obese and diabetic models, whether mice or monkeys, respond much better to that treatment in terms of glucose control and body weight loss,” Gerhart-Hines said. He explained that GLP-1 agonists don’t work quite as well for weight loss in people with diabetes because the drug stimulates insulin production in a system that already has insulin issues and can cause more sugar to be stored as fat.

Further, GLP-1 agonists are peptide drugs, which are expensive to make. The NK2R agonists are small molecules that would be cheaper to produce, Gerhart-Hines believes. One candidate they’re testing would likely be given once daily, another once weekly.

The current surge in obesity and diabetes may be a direct consequence of our bodies’ decreased energy expenditure. “Compared to 80s and 90s, the average person is more physically active, but the overarching basal resting energy expenditure has gone down,” said Gerhart-Hines, according to research by John Speakman at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. We don’t know why, though, he said, but guesses it could be our diets or climate controlled environments.

But the NK2R agonists are among the many currently being studied for weight loss, and it may be hard to compete with the GLP-1 agonists. “As GLP-1 medicines will soon achieve 25% weight loss and have an extensively studied safety profile, the task of producing better drugs that work well in most people, are well tolerated and also reduce the complications of cardiometabolic disease, is challenging but not impossible,” said Drucker.

Gerhart-Hines said they plan to start trials in humans in the next year, but he suspects it will be another 6 or 7 years before it comes to market, if the trials are successful.

“There’s people who want [a GLP-1 agonist] and can’t even get it,” Gerhart-Hines said. As far as weight loss drugs, he noted, “we are not even saturating the market right now.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For people with obesity or type 2 diabetes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists (including Mounjaro, Wegovy, and Ozempic) have been labeled miracle drugs. But they aren’t miraculous for everyone. Research indicates a significant portion of people discontinue using them within a year.

The main problems with GLP-1 agonists are that they are expensive and have a fairly high rate of side effects — such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation. Another big one is muscle loss.

A new study, published in Nature, shows a potential alternative to GLP-1 agonists with fewer side effects, at least in mice and nonhuman primates.

This lack of side effects, particularly in how the potential drug causes no muscle loss — and in fact engages muscle for some of its effect — sets it apart and makes it a potential alternative to GLP-1s. The key is not just reducing appetite but also increasing energy expenditure.

 

How It Works

The new approach targets a protein called NK2R — a member of the neurokinin receptor family, which has a role in a variety of physiological processes, including pain sensation, anxiety, and inflammation. 

“We were looking to see genetic linkages to metabolic health, and there NK2R was,” said Zach Gerhart-Hines, PhD, a professor studying molecular metabolism at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and principal investigator of the study. The group then created a few long-acting agonists that are selective for NK2R. So far, they’ve tested them in mice and nonhuman primates.

“The data on new medicines targeting NK2R is very promising and highlights the potential of both reducing food intake and increasing energy expenditure,” said Daniel Drucker, MD, an endocrinologist and researcher at Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto who was not involved in the study.

“The drug activates a certain region in the hindbrain of the animal, which is controlling food intake, and it does so by reducing appetite without increasing nausea or vomiting,” explained Frederike Sass, a research assistant at the University of Copenhagen in Copenhagen, Denmark, who led the study.

Gerhart-Hines said that even at the highest dose, there were no incidents of vomiting among the nonhuman primates. Mice can’t vomit, but there are ways to tell if they feel unwell from a drug. One way researchers test that is to start feeding the mice sweetened water at the same time they’re given a drug. Then later, when the mice are no longer on the drug, they’re given a choice between sweetened and unsweetened water. If they weren’t feeling well on the drug, they’ll choose plain water because they associate the sweet water with feeling bad, otherwise mice prefer sweet water. Sass said that with the NK2R agonist, they continued to drink sweet water after the treatment, whereas when they gave the mice semaglutide, the mice preferred plain water posttreatment.

The researchers also monitored the animals’ psychological health, as NK2R has been associated with anxiety, but they observed no behavioral changes.

 

The Key Mechanism at Work

One big question is how the NK2R agonists work. The amphetamines people used for weight loss during the 1950s and 1960s worked by making people more active. GLP-1 agonists reduce appetite and lower blood sugar. This is not that. In their studies with animals, the researchers didn’t observe that the animals were more active nor were there changes in other biomarkers like insulin. So far, the main difference they found with the NK2R agonists is an increase in thermogenesis in certain muscles.

Another benefit of the NK2R treatments is that they don’t seem to have a big impact on lean mass — the nonfat component of body weight, namely muscle, bones, and organs. Studies indicate that 25%-39% of weight loss on GLP-1 agonists is lost muscle. According to DEXA scans of the mice, Gerhart-Hines said they observed no lean mass loss. (In mice, he noted, GLP-1 agonists can cause up to 50% lean mass loss).

And for people with both diabetes and obesity, “what we found with NK2R is that obese and diabetic models, whether mice or monkeys, respond much better to that treatment in terms of glucose control and body weight loss,” Gerhart-Hines said. He explained that GLP-1 agonists don’t work quite as well for weight loss in people with diabetes because the drug stimulates insulin production in a system that already has insulin issues and can cause more sugar to be stored as fat.

Further, GLP-1 agonists are peptide drugs, which are expensive to make. The NK2R agonists are small molecules that would be cheaper to produce, Gerhart-Hines believes. One candidate they’re testing would likely be given once daily, another once weekly.

The current surge in obesity and diabetes may be a direct consequence of our bodies’ decreased energy expenditure. “Compared to 80s and 90s, the average person is more physically active, but the overarching basal resting energy expenditure has gone down,” said Gerhart-Hines, according to research by John Speakman at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. We don’t know why, though, he said, but guesses it could be our diets or climate controlled environments.

But the NK2R agonists are among the many currently being studied for weight loss, and it may be hard to compete with the GLP-1 agonists. “As GLP-1 medicines will soon achieve 25% weight loss and have an extensively studied safety profile, the task of producing better drugs that work well in most people, are well tolerated and also reduce the complications of cardiometabolic disease, is challenging but not impossible,” said Drucker.

Gerhart-Hines said they plan to start trials in humans in the next year, but he suspects it will be another 6 or 7 years before it comes to market, if the trials are successful.

“There’s people who want [a GLP-1 agonist] and can’t even get it,” Gerhart-Hines said. As far as weight loss drugs, he noted, “we are not even saturating the market right now.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For people with obesity or type 2 diabetes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists (including Mounjaro, Wegovy, and Ozempic) have been labeled miracle drugs. But they aren’t miraculous for everyone. Research indicates a significant portion of people discontinue using them within a year.

The main problems with GLP-1 agonists are that they are expensive and have a fairly high rate of side effects — such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation. Another big one is muscle loss.

A new study, published in Nature, shows a potential alternative to GLP-1 agonists with fewer side effects, at least in mice and nonhuman primates.

This lack of side effects, particularly in how the potential drug causes no muscle loss — and in fact engages muscle for some of its effect — sets it apart and makes it a potential alternative to GLP-1s. The key is not just reducing appetite but also increasing energy expenditure.

 

How It Works

The new approach targets a protein called NK2R — a member of the neurokinin receptor family, which has a role in a variety of physiological processes, including pain sensation, anxiety, and inflammation. 

“We were looking to see genetic linkages to metabolic health, and there NK2R was,” said Zach Gerhart-Hines, PhD, a professor studying molecular metabolism at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and principal investigator of the study. The group then created a few long-acting agonists that are selective for NK2R. So far, they’ve tested them in mice and nonhuman primates.

“The data on new medicines targeting NK2R is very promising and highlights the potential of both reducing food intake and increasing energy expenditure,” said Daniel Drucker, MD, an endocrinologist and researcher at Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto who was not involved in the study.

“The drug activates a certain region in the hindbrain of the animal, which is controlling food intake, and it does so by reducing appetite without increasing nausea or vomiting,” explained Frederike Sass, a research assistant at the University of Copenhagen in Copenhagen, Denmark, who led the study.

Gerhart-Hines said that even at the highest dose, there were no incidents of vomiting among the nonhuman primates. Mice can’t vomit, but there are ways to tell if they feel unwell from a drug. One way researchers test that is to start feeding the mice sweetened water at the same time they’re given a drug. Then later, when the mice are no longer on the drug, they’re given a choice between sweetened and unsweetened water. If they weren’t feeling well on the drug, they’ll choose plain water because they associate the sweet water with feeling bad, otherwise mice prefer sweet water. Sass said that with the NK2R agonist, they continued to drink sweet water after the treatment, whereas when they gave the mice semaglutide, the mice preferred plain water posttreatment.

The researchers also monitored the animals’ psychological health, as NK2R has been associated with anxiety, but they observed no behavioral changes.

 

The Key Mechanism at Work

One big question is how the NK2R agonists work. The amphetamines people used for weight loss during the 1950s and 1960s worked by making people more active. GLP-1 agonists reduce appetite and lower blood sugar. This is not that. In their studies with animals, the researchers didn’t observe that the animals were more active nor were there changes in other biomarkers like insulin. So far, the main difference they found with the NK2R agonists is an increase in thermogenesis in certain muscles.

Another benefit of the NK2R treatments is that they don’t seem to have a big impact on lean mass — the nonfat component of body weight, namely muscle, bones, and organs. Studies indicate that 25%-39% of weight loss on GLP-1 agonists is lost muscle. According to DEXA scans of the mice, Gerhart-Hines said they observed no lean mass loss. (In mice, he noted, GLP-1 agonists can cause up to 50% lean mass loss).

And for people with both diabetes and obesity, “what we found with NK2R is that obese and diabetic models, whether mice or monkeys, respond much better to that treatment in terms of glucose control and body weight loss,” Gerhart-Hines said. He explained that GLP-1 agonists don’t work quite as well for weight loss in people with diabetes because the drug stimulates insulin production in a system that already has insulin issues and can cause more sugar to be stored as fat.

Further, GLP-1 agonists are peptide drugs, which are expensive to make. The NK2R agonists are small molecules that would be cheaper to produce, Gerhart-Hines believes. One candidate they’re testing would likely be given once daily, another once weekly.

The current surge in obesity and diabetes may be a direct consequence of our bodies’ decreased energy expenditure. “Compared to 80s and 90s, the average person is more physically active, but the overarching basal resting energy expenditure has gone down,” said Gerhart-Hines, according to research by John Speakman at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. We don’t know why, though, he said, but guesses it could be our diets or climate controlled environments.

But the NK2R agonists are among the many currently being studied for weight loss, and it may be hard to compete with the GLP-1 agonists. “As GLP-1 medicines will soon achieve 25% weight loss and have an extensively studied safety profile, the task of producing better drugs that work well in most people, are well tolerated and also reduce the complications of cardiometabolic disease, is challenging but not impossible,” said Drucker.

Gerhart-Hines said they plan to start trials in humans in the next year, but he suspects it will be another 6 or 7 years before it comes to market, if the trials are successful.

“There’s people who want [a GLP-1 agonist] and can’t even get it,” Gerhart-Hines said. As far as weight loss drugs, he noted, “we are not even saturating the market right now.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Of all the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, only stimulants and atomoxetine are effective at reducing core symptoms, results of a large comprehensive meta-analysis showed.

The study of 113 randomized controlled trials with nearly 15,000 adults with a formal diagnosis of ADHD also revealed that atomoxetine is less acceptable to patients and that results of efficacy of nonpharmacological strategies are inconsistent.

Data on long-term efficacy of ADHD therapies are lacking, investigators noted, so these results only apply to short-term efficacy.

“There is a lot of controversy about medication, so these are quite reassuring data and certainly reinforce the role of medication as a treatment for ADHD,” study investigator Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton, England, said during a press briefing hosted by the UK Science Media Center where the findings were released.

The results also point to the “possible role of nonpharmacological interventions, which are currently not well established in current guidelines. However, there is a need for better evidence to fully understand the exact effect of these nonpharmacological interventions,” Cortese noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry. 

 

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

Once thought to be a childhood disorder only, ADHD is now well-known to persist into adulthood, affecting roughly 2.5% of the general adult population worldwide. The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear.

To address this knowledge gap, researchers did a comprehensive systematic review and component network meta-analysis comparing a broad range of drug and nondrug treatments for adults with ADHD across several outcomes.

For reducing core ADHD symptoms at 12 weeks, only stimulants and atomoxetine were better than placebo in self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, the study team found.

For stimulants, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) on the self-reported and clinician-reported scales were 0.39 and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding SMDs for atomoxetine were 0.38 and 0.51.

There was no evidence that ADHD medications were better than placebo in improving additional relevant outcomes such as quality of life.

In terms of nondrug interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures, with SMDs of −1.35, −0.79, −0.77, and −0.78, respectively.

However, the evidence for nondrug strategies is less conclusive overall, with “discordant results across types of raters and based on a small body of evidence,” the authors wrote in their article.

And evidence for long-term efficacy (beyond 12 weeks) for ADHD interventions is “limited and under-investigated,” they said.

Regarding acceptability, all strategies were similar to placebo except for atomoxetine and guanfacine which had lower acceptability than placebo.

“It’s very important to emphasize that we focused on the average effect, not at an individual level,” first author Edoardo Ostinelli, MD, with University of Oxford, England, said at the briefing. “Therefore, we cannot make any recommendation at an individual level. We need studies with individual participant data so that we can personalize treatment.”

Cortese said the information from this analysis may be particularly important for “psychoeducation” of the patient before actually starting with a treatment plan. Patients often ask about nonpharmacological interventions and this study provides the “best synthesis of available data to inform these discussions,” he said.

 

Experts Weigh In 

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK Science Media Center.

Celso Arango, MD, PhD, psychiatrist with Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain, noted that there is a “clear shortage of research on ADHD in adulthood, particularly regarding medium-term (beyond 12 weeks) and long-term treatment outcomes. Consequently, the findings are applicable only to short-term treatment.”

Another strength of the study is that it was developed with input from people with ADHD, Arango added, making it “highly relevant.”

The majority of studies available for the analysis involved pharmacological treatments, which is important to consider when interpreting the findings, noted Katya Rubia, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, King’s College London, England.

“For example, for neurostimulation, only 10 studies were included and on very heterogeneous stimulation methods,” Rubia said. “The evidence on the efficacy of neurostimulation is therefore hardly conclusive and more studies are needed to establish their efficacy.”

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, agreed. While the study is a “valuable contribution to the literature,” it sheds light on “both the scarcity of neurostimulation research and the limited exploration of combined treatment approaches for ADHD,” he said.

“While novel neurostimulation methods linked to neuroplasticity — such as those we have demonstrated to be superior in children with ADHD — were not covered here, they have shown promising and lasting benefits. In contrast, research in adults remains relatively underdeveloped. Moving forward, greater emphasis on innovative, tolerable, personalized, and sustainable neurostimulation approaches is essential to meet the unmet clinical needs of adults with ADHD,” Kadosh added.

In a commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry, David Coghill, MD, with The University of Melbourne, Australia, cautioned that the findings do not mean that potential benefits of nonpharmacological interventions should be dismissed.

“While some of the nonpharmacological treatments (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation) showed effects on clinician-rated outcomes similar to, and in some cases greater than, the pharmacological treatments, they did not show the same effects on self-reported outcomes. These interventions were therefore considered less robust than the pharmacological treatments that showed changes on both measurement types,” he wrote.

This study had no commercial funding. Ostinelli had received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Cortese received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses in relation to lectures delivered for the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health, the Canadian ADHD Alliance Resource, and the British Association of Psychopharmacology; and had received honoraria from MEDICE; and is chair of the European ADHD Guidelines Group. Arango, Rubia, and Kadosh had no relevant disclosures. Coghill had received honoraria from CCM Conecta, Takeda, Novartis, Servier, and MEDICE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Of all the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, only stimulants and atomoxetine are effective at reducing core symptoms, results of a large comprehensive meta-analysis showed.

The study of 113 randomized controlled trials with nearly 15,000 adults with a formal diagnosis of ADHD also revealed that atomoxetine is less acceptable to patients and that results of efficacy of nonpharmacological strategies are inconsistent.

Data on long-term efficacy of ADHD therapies are lacking, investigators noted, so these results only apply to short-term efficacy.

“There is a lot of controversy about medication, so these are quite reassuring data and certainly reinforce the role of medication as a treatment for ADHD,” study investigator Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton, England, said during a press briefing hosted by the UK Science Media Center where the findings were released.

The results also point to the “possible role of nonpharmacological interventions, which are currently not well established in current guidelines. However, there is a need for better evidence to fully understand the exact effect of these nonpharmacological interventions,” Cortese noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry. 

 

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

Once thought to be a childhood disorder only, ADHD is now well-known to persist into adulthood, affecting roughly 2.5% of the general adult population worldwide. The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear.

To address this knowledge gap, researchers did a comprehensive systematic review and component network meta-analysis comparing a broad range of drug and nondrug treatments for adults with ADHD across several outcomes.

For reducing core ADHD symptoms at 12 weeks, only stimulants and atomoxetine were better than placebo in self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, the study team found.

For stimulants, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) on the self-reported and clinician-reported scales were 0.39 and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding SMDs for atomoxetine were 0.38 and 0.51.

There was no evidence that ADHD medications were better than placebo in improving additional relevant outcomes such as quality of life.

In terms of nondrug interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures, with SMDs of −1.35, −0.79, −0.77, and −0.78, respectively.

However, the evidence for nondrug strategies is less conclusive overall, with “discordant results across types of raters and based on a small body of evidence,” the authors wrote in their article.

And evidence for long-term efficacy (beyond 12 weeks) for ADHD interventions is “limited and under-investigated,” they said.

Regarding acceptability, all strategies were similar to placebo except for atomoxetine and guanfacine which had lower acceptability than placebo.

“It’s very important to emphasize that we focused on the average effect, not at an individual level,” first author Edoardo Ostinelli, MD, with University of Oxford, England, said at the briefing. “Therefore, we cannot make any recommendation at an individual level. We need studies with individual participant data so that we can personalize treatment.”

Cortese said the information from this analysis may be particularly important for “psychoeducation” of the patient before actually starting with a treatment plan. Patients often ask about nonpharmacological interventions and this study provides the “best synthesis of available data to inform these discussions,” he said.

 

Experts Weigh In 

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK Science Media Center.

Celso Arango, MD, PhD, psychiatrist with Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain, noted that there is a “clear shortage of research on ADHD in adulthood, particularly regarding medium-term (beyond 12 weeks) and long-term treatment outcomes. Consequently, the findings are applicable only to short-term treatment.”

Another strength of the study is that it was developed with input from people with ADHD, Arango added, making it “highly relevant.”

The majority of studies available for the analysis involved pharmacological treatments, which is important to consider when interpreting the findings, noted Katya Rubia, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, King’s College London, England.

“For example, for neurostimulation, only 10 studies were included and on very heterogeneous stimulation methods,” Rubia said. “The evidence on the efficacy of neurostimulation is therefore hardly conclusive and more studies are needed to establish their efficacy.”

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, agreed. While the study is a “valuable contribution to the literature,” it sheds light on “both the scarcity of neurostimulation research and the limited exploration of combined treatment approaches for ADHD,” he said.

“While novel neurostimulation methods linked to neuroplasticity — such as those we have demonstrated to be superior in children with ADHD — were not covered here, they have shown promising and lasting benefits. In contrast, research in adults remains relatively underdeveloped. Moving forward, greater emphasis on innovative, tolerable, personalized, and sustainable neurostimulation approaches is essential to meet the unmet clinical needs of adults with ADHD,” Kadosh added.

In a commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry, David Coghill, MD, with The University of Melbourne, Australia, cautioned that the findings do not mean that potential benefits of nonpharmacological interventions should be dismissed.

“While some of the nonpharmacological treatments (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation) showed effects on clinician-rated outcomes similar to, and in some cases greater than, the pharmacological treatments, they did not show the same effects on self-reported outcomes. These interventions were therefore considered less robust than the pharmacological treatments that showed changes on both measurement types,” he wrote.

This study had no commercial funding. Ostinelli had received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Cortese received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses in relation to lectures delivered for the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health, the Canadian ADHD Alliance Resource, and the British Association of Psychopharmacology; and had received honoraria from MEDICE; and is chair of the European ADHD Guidelines Group. Arango, Rubia, and Kadosh had no relevant disclosures. Coghill had received honoraria from CCM Conecta, Takeda, Novartis, Servier, and MEDICE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Of all the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults, only stimulants and atomoxetine are effective at reducing core symptoms, results of a large comprehensive meta-analysis showed.

The study of 113 randomized controlled trials with nearly 15,000 adults with a formal diagnosis of ADHD also revealed that atomoxetine is less acceptable to patients and that results of efficacy of nonpharmacological strategies are inconsistent.

Data on long-term efficacy of ADHD therapies are lacking, investigators noted, so these results only apply to short-term efficacy.

“There is a lot of controversy about medication, so these are quite reassuring data and certainly reinforce the role of medication as a treatment for ADHD,” study investigator Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton, England, said during a press briefing hosted by the UK Science Media Center where the findings were released.

The results also point to the “possible role of nonpharmacological interventions, which are currently not well established in current guidelines. However, there is a need for better evidence to fully understand the exact effect of these nonpharmacological interventions,” Cortese noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry. 

 

Bridging the Knowledge Gap

Once thought to be a childhood disorder only, ADHD is now well-known to persist into adulthood, affecting roughly 2.5% of the general adult population worldwide. The comparative benefits and harms of available interventions for ADHD in adults remain unclear.

To address this knowledge gap, researchers did a comprehensive systematic review and component network meta-analysis comparing a broad range of drug and nondrug treatments for adults with ADHD across several outcomes.

For reducing core ADHD symptoms at 12 weeks, only stimulants and atomoxetine were better than placebo in self-reported and clinician-reported rating scales, the study team found.

For stimulants, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) on the self-reported and clinician-reported scales were 0.39 and 0.61, respectively. The corresponding SMDs for atomoxetine were 0.38 and 0.51.

There was no evidence that ADHD medications were better than placebo in improving additional relevant outcomes such as quality of life.

In terms of nondrug interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation were better than placebo only on clinician-reported measures, with SMDs of −1.35, −0.79, −0.77, and −0.78, respectively.

However, the evidence for nondrug strategies is less conclusive overall, with “discordant results across types of raters and based on a small body of evidence,” the authors wrote in their article.

And evidence for long-term efficacy (beyond 12 weeks) for ADHD interventions is “limited and under-investigated,” they said.

Regarding acceptability, all strategies were similar to placebo except for atomoxetine and guanfacine which had lower acceptability than placebo.

“It’s very important to emphasize that we focused on the average effect, not at an individual level,” first author Edoardo Ostinelli, MD, with University of Oxford, England, said at the briefing. “Therefore, we cannot make any recommendation at an individual level. We need studies with individual participant data so that we can personalize treatment.”

Cortese said the information from this analysis may be particularly important for “psychoeducation” of the patient before actually starting with a treatment plan. Patients often ask about nonpharmacological interventions and this study provides the “best synthesis of available data to inform these discussions,” he said.

 

Experts Weigh In 

Several experts weighed in on the results in a statement from the UK Science Media Center.

Celso Arango, MD, PhD, psychiatrist with Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain, noted that there is a “clear shortage of research on ADHD in adulthood, particularly regarding medium-term (beyond 12 weeks) and long-term treatment outcomes. Consequently, the findings are applicable only to short-term treatment.”

Another strength of the study is that it was developed with input from people with ADHD, Arango added, making it “highly relevant.”

The majority of studies available for the analysis involved pharmacological treatments, which is important to consider when interpreting the findings, noted Katya Rubia, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, King’s College London, England.

“For example, for neurostimulation, only 10 studies were included and on very heterogeneous stimulation methods,” Rubia said. “The evidence on the efficacy of neurostimulation is therefore hardly conclusive and more studies are needed to establish their efficacy.”

Roi Cohen Kadosh, PhD, professor of cognitive neuroscience, University of Surrey, Guildford, England, agreed. While the study is a “valuable contribution to the literature,” it sheds light on “both the scarcity of neurostimulation research and the limited exploration of combined treatment approaches for ADHD,” he said.

“While novel neurostimulation methods linked to neuroplasticity — such as those we have demonstrated to be superior in children with ADHD — were not covered here, they have shown promising and lasting benefits. In contrast, research in adults remains relatively underdeveloped. Moving forward, greater emphasis on innovative, tolerable, personalized, and sustainable neurostimulation approaches is essential to meet the unmet clinical needs of adults with ADHD,” Kadosh added.

In a commentary in The Lancet Psychiatry, David Coghill, MD, with The University of Melbourne, Australia, cautioned that the findings do not mean that potential benefits of nonpharmacological interventions should be dismissed.

“While some of the nonpharmacological treatments (eg, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive remediation, mindfulness, psychoeducation, and transcranial direct current stimulation) showed effects on clinician-rated outcomes similar to, and in some cases greater than, the pharmacological treatments, they did not show the same effects on self-reported outcomes. These interventions were therefore considered less robust than the pharmacological treatments that showed changes on both measurement types,” he wrote.

This study had no commercial funding. Ostinelli had received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. Cortese received reimbursement for travel and accommodation expenses in relation to lectures delivered for the Association for Child and Adolescent Central Health, the Canadian ADHD Alliance Resource, and the British Association of Psychopharmacology; and had received honoraria from MEDICE; and is chair of the European ADHD Guidelines Group. Arango, Rubia, and Kadosh had no relevant disclosures. Coghill had received honoraria from CCM Conecta, Takeda, Novartis, Servier, and MEDICE.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.

The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.

The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.

 

‘A Little Unusual’

Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”

Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.

A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.

“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.

One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.

Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”

While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”

Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).

Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).

Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.

 

Database Strengths and Limitations

The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.

The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.

“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.

“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.

However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”

The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.

The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.

The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.

 

‘A Little Unusual’

Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”

Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.

A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.

“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.

One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.

Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”

While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”

Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).

Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).

Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.

 

Database Strengths and Limitations

The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.

The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.

“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.

“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.

However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”

The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with high cholesterol taking statins may have a significantly higher risk of developing glaucoma than those not taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, an observational study of a large research database found.

The study, published in Ophthalmology Glaucoma, analyzed electronic health records of 79,742 adults with hyperlipidemia in the All of Us Research Program database from 2017 to 2022. The repository is maintained by the National Institutes of Health and provides data for research into precision medicine.

The 6365 statin users in the study population had a 47% greater unadjusted prevalence of glaucoma than nonusers of the drugs (P < .001) and a 13% greater prevalence in models that adjusted for potential confounding variables (P = .02). The researchers also found statin users had significantly higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but even patients with optimal levels of LDL-C had higher rates of glaucoma.

 

‘A Little Unusual’

Drawing any clinically relevant conclusions from this latest study would be premature, said Victoria Tseng, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at UCLA Stein Eye Institute and Doheny Eye Centers UCLA, and the senior author of the study. “I certainly would not be telling my patients on statins to stop their statins.”

Tseng acknowledged her group’s finding runs counter to previous studies that found statins may help prevent glaucoma or at least have no effect on the eye disease, although the association between cholesterol and glaucoma has been well established.

A 2019 analysis of nearly 137,000 participants in three population studies found no connection between statin use and the risk for primary open-angle glaucoma. A 2012 study of more than 500,000 people with high cholesterol found statin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for open-angle glaucoma.

“It’s a little unusual that we found the opposite,” Tseng said in an interview.

One explanation is the observational nature of the AoU analysis Tseng’s group conducted. “We don’t know what these people look like or how well the data were collected, so we’re going off of what’s there in the database,” she said.

Another explanation could be the nature of hyperlipidemia itself, she said. “There have definitely been studies that suggest increased cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma. Presumably, you’re not going to be taking a statin unless your cholesterol is a little worse.”

While the study analysis attempted to control for cholesterol levels, Tseng noted, “there could be some residual confounding from that.”

Statin users in the study had an average LDL-C level of 144.9 mg/dL vs 136.3 mg/dL in the population not taking any cholesterol medication (P < .001). Statin users with optimal LDL-C, defined as less than 100 mg/dL, had a 39% greater adjusted prevalence of glaucoma (P = .02), while those with high LDL-C (160-189 mg/dL) had a 37% greater adjusted prevalence (P = .005).

Age was another factor in the risk for glaucoma, the study found. Statin users aged 60-69 years had an adjusted rate of glaucoma 28% greater than that for nonusers (P = .05).

Laboratory studies may help clarify the relationships between statins and glaucoma, Tseng said. That could include putting statins directly on the optic nerve of laboratory mice and further investigating how statins affect the mechanisms that influence eye pressure, a key driver of glaucoma. From a population study perspective, a randomized trial of glaucoma patients comparing the effect of statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications with nonuse may provide answers.

 

Database Strengths and Limitations

The study “adds to the somewhat mixed literature on the potential association between statins and glaucoma,” Sophia Wang, MD, MS, a glaucoma specialist at Stanford Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California, said in an interview.

The AoU research cohort is a “notable strength” of the new paper, added Wang, who has used the AoU database to study the relationship between blood pressure, blood pressure medications, and glaucoma.

“The population is especially large and diverse, with a large proportion of participants from backgrounds that are traditionally underrepresented in research,” she said. And The inclusion of both medical records and survey data means the health information on the cohort is detailed and longitudinal.

“The authors make excellent use here of the data by including in their analyses results of laboratory investigations — LDL-C, notably — which wouldn’t be readily available in other types of datasets such as claims datasets,” she said.

However, the database has limitations as well, including its reliance on coding, which is prone to errors, to determine glaucoma diagnosis and missing information on eye examinations. In addition, the study used one LDL-C measurement rather than multiple measurements, Wang pointed out, “and we know that LDL-C can vary over time.”

The study was funded by Research to Prevent Blindness. Tseng and Wang reported no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: I’m here at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. It’s a very exciting meeting, but one of the interesting topics that we’re going to be talking about is lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] . It’s definitely one of the hottest sessions of the meeting.

Joining me to discuss this topic is Dr Steve Nicholls, who is arguably one of the leading experts in the world on lipids. He’s a professor of medicine at Monash University in Australia. Welcome. Thanks, Steve. 

Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD: Thanks for having me. 

O’Donoghue: There are two phase 2 studies that we’ll circle back to that are being presented here at the American Heart Association meeting. These are for novel therapeutics that lower Lp(a). Perhaps taking a step back, we know that there’s a large body of evidence to support the concept that Lp(a) plays a causal role in heart disease and atherogenesis, but to date we haven’t had any effective therapies to really lower it.

Thinking about the therapeutics specifically that are on the horizon, perhaps we could start there. Which one is furthest along in development, and how does that look in terms of its ability to lower Lp(a)?

 

Pelacarsen, an ASO

Nicholls: Most of the therapies are injectable. Most of them are nucleic acid–based therapies, and the one that’s most advanced is an agent called pelacarsen. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), and it has gone all the way through its early phase 2 studies. It has a fully enrolled cardiovascular outcome trial.

We’re all eagerly awaiting the results of that study sometime in the next year or so. That will be the first large-scale clinical trial that will give us some clinical validation to ask the question of whether substantive lowering of Lp(a) will lower cardiovascular risk, with an agent that in early studies looks like it lowers Lp(a) about 80%.

O’Donoghue: Which is tremendous, because again, we really don’t have any effective therapies right now. I guess one of the big questions is, how much do we need to lower Lp(a) for that to translate into meaningful clinical benefit? What’s your sense there? 

Nicholls: Well, we simply don’t know. We’ve tried to look to genetics to try and give us some sort of sense in terms of what that looks like. Lp(a) is a little tricky because the assays and the numbers that get spit out can be tricky in terms of trying to compare apples and apples in different studies. 

We think that it’s probably at least a 50- to 75-mg/dL lowering of Lp(a) using the old units. We think that pelacarsen would hit that, and so our hope is that that would translate to a 15%-20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, but again, we’ve never asked this question before. 

We have data from PCSK9 inhibitor trials showing that lesser reductions in Lp(a) of 25%-30% with both evolocumab and alirocumab contributed to the clinical benefit that we saw in those studies. Those agents were really good at lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but Lp(a) lowering seemed to matter. One would be very hopeful that if a 25%-30% lowering of Lp(a) is useful, then an 80% or greater lowering of Lp(a) should be really useful. 

 

The siRNAs

O’Donoghue: In addition to the ASO pelacarsen that you mentioned, there are several therapeutics in the pipeline, including three small interfering (si) RNAs that are at least in phase 2 and phase 3 testing at this point in time. There’s olpasiran, which in phase 2 testing led to more than a 95% reduction in Lp(a), and then lepodisiran , which has now moved into phase 3  testing, albeit we haven’t seen yet the phase 2  results. 

What is your sense of lepodisiran and its efficacy? 

Nicholls: What’s been really quite striking about the siRNAs is the even more profound degree of lowering of Lp(a) that we’re seeing. We’re seeing 90% and greater lowering of Lp(a) in all of those programs. We’re seeing some differences between the programs in terms of the durability of that effect. 

I think it would be fair to say that with zerlasiran we’re starting to see perhaps that lowering effect starts to taper off a little bit more quickly than the other two. I think that may have some implications in terms of what dosing regimens may look like in the future. 

Even so, we’re talking about therapies that may be dosed 3- to 6-monthly, or even with the potential for being less frequent than that with lepodisiran. Again, I think the phase 2 data will be really important in terms of giving us more information.

O’Donoghue: For the lepodisiran results, I was really quite struck that even though it was small numbers, single dose administered, it really looked like the duration of effect persisted at the higher doses up to about a year. 

Nicholls: It looks pretty promising. We’ve launched the ACCLAIM study, the large cardiovascular outcome trial of lepodisiran, with a 6-monthly regimen. We are hopeful that more information may be able to give us the opportunity for even less frequent administration. 

That has really important implications for patients where adherence is a particular issue. They may just simply want to come into the clinic. You know, once or twice a year, very much like we’re seeing with inclisiran, and that may be a really effective approach for many patients. 

O’Donoghue: You alluded to the zerlasiran results, which were presented here at the American Heart Association meeting, and that even though it led to a robust reduction in Lp(a), it looked like the durability component was maybe a little bit shorter than for some of the other siRNAs that are currently being evaluated.

What’s your sense of that? 

Nicholls: It probably is. The implications clinically, at least in an outcome trial when they ultimately get to that point, probably aren’t that important. They’ll probably just have slightly more frequent administration. That may become a bigger issue when it gets out into the clinic.

The nice thing is that if all of these agents appear to be effective, are well tolerated, and get out to the clinic, then clinicians and patients are going to have a lot of choice. 

O’Donoghue: I think more competition is always good news for the field, ultimately. I think to your point, especially for a drug that might be self-administered, ultimately, whether it’s once a month or once every 3 months, it doesn’t probably make much difference. I think different choices are needed for different patients. 

Perhaps that’s a perfect segue to talk about the oral Lp(a) inhibitor that is also being developed. You presented these results for muvalaplin. 

 

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule

Nicholls: In terms of frequency of administration, we’re talking about a daily oral therapeutic. For patients who don’t want an injectable and are happy to take a tablet every day, muvalaplin has the potential to be a really good option for them. 

Muvalaplin is an oral small-molecule inhibitor. It essentially prevents apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] from binding to apolipoprotein B (apo B). We presented phase 1 data  at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last year, showing probably Lp(a) lowering on the order of about 65%. Here, we’re going to show that that’s a little bit more. It looks like it’s probably at least 70% lowering using a standard Lp(a) assay. Using an assay that looks specifically at intact Lp(a) particles, it’s probably well in excess of 80%.

Those are really good results. The safety and tolerability with muvalaplin look really good. Again, we’ll need to see that agent move forward into a large outcome trial and we’ve yet to hear about that, at least for now. 

O’Donoghue: It’s an interesting challenge that you faced in terms of the assay because, as you say, it really disrupts the apo(a) from binding to the apo B particle, and hence, a traditional assay that just measures apo(a), regardless of whether or not it’s bound to an apo B particle, may be a conservative estimate.

Nicholls: It may, in particular, because we know that apo(a) ultimately then binds to the drug. That assay is measuring what we think is nonfunctional apo(a) in addition to functional apo(a). It’s measuring functional apo(a) that’s still on an actual Lp(a) particle, but if it’s bound to muvalaplin, we think to some degree that’s probably unfair to count that. That’s why trying to develop other assays to try and understand the full effect of the drug is really important in terms of trying to understand how we develop that and move that forward.

O’Donoghue: Is there any evidence yet that the apo(a) particle that is not bound to apo B is in fact nonfunctional as you described it? 

Nicholls: We think that’s likely to be the case, but I think there continues to be research in that space to try and settle that question once and for all. 

O’Donoghue: Again, I think it’s a really exciting time in this field. Right now, we have three ongoing phase 3 trials. We have the pelacarsen trial that is still in follow-up, and fingers crossed, maybe will report out next year. Olpasiran is also in phase 3 testing, completed enrollment, and also is in the follow-up period. We also have lepodisiran, the ACCLAIM trial, as you mentioned. For people who are perhaps watching and looking to enroll their patients, this trial is still ongoing right now in terms of enrollment. 

Nicholls: It is, and what’s nice about the ACCLAIM study is that it includes both primary and secondary prevention patients. For the first time in a big outcome trial, patients with high Lp(a) levels but who have yet to have a clinical event can actually get into a clinical trial.

I’m sure, like you, my clinic is full of patients with high Lp(a) who are really desperate to get into these trials. Many of those primary prevention patients just simply haven’t qualified, so that’s really good news. 

The step beyond that, if we’re talking about even less frequent administration, is gene editing. We’re seeing those studies with CRISPR move forward to try to evaluate whether a single gene-editing approach at Lp(a) will be all that you need, which is even a more amazing concept, but that’s a study that needs more work. 

O’Donoghue: An exciting space though, for sure. As a final thought, you mentioned the patients in your clinic who you have identified as having high Lp(a). What are you doing right now in your practice for managing those patients? I think there are many practitioners out there who struggle with whether they should really measure their patients’ Lp(a), and whether they want to know that information.

Nicholls: Yeah, it’s really hard. The answer is yes, we do want to know it. We know it’s a great risk enhancer. We know that a patient with a high Lp(a) is somebody whom I want to more intensively treat their other risk factors. I’m aiming for a lower LDL. I’m being much tighter with blood pressure control.

I think there’s some argument from observational data at least that aspirin remains a consideration, particularly in patients where you think there’s a particularly high risk associated with that high Lp(a). I think there are things we absolutely can do today, but we can’t do anything if you don’t know the numbers.

It starts with testing, and then we can move on to what we can do today, and then hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we’ll have specific therapies that really enable for us to address Lp(a) quite definitively. 

O’Donoghue: Thanks again for taking the time. This was a very helpful discussion.

 

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group. A strong believer in evidence-based medicine, she relishes discussions about the published literature. A native Canadian, Michelle loves spending time outdoors with her family but admits with shame that she’s never strapped on hockey skates. Dr O’Donoghue, Senior Investigator, TIMI Study Group; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, disclosed ties to Janssen; Novartis; CVS Minute Clinic; Merck & Co.; GlaxoSmithKline; Eisai Inc.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Medicines Company; and Amgen. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Director, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University; Director, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia, has disclosed ties with Akcea Therapeutics; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; CSL Behring; Eli Lilly and Company; Esperion Therapeutics; Kowa Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Novo Nordisk; Pfizer; Sanofi Regeneron; Daichii Sankyo; Vaxxinity; Cyclarity; CSL Sequirus; Takeda; Anthera Pharmaceuticals; Cerenis Therapeutics; Infraredx; New Amsterdam Pharma; Novartis; and Resverlogix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.