Clinician Reviews

New data suggest a significantly stronger link in women compared with men between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.

“Our findings imply that women with AF may be at higher risk for MCI and dementia with potentially more rapid disease progression from normal cognition to MCI or dementia than women without AF or men with and without AF,” wrote authors of a new study led by Kathryn A. Wood, PhD, RN, Neil Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University in Atlanta.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center data with 43,630 patients and analyzed sex differences between men and women with AF and their performance on neuropsychological tests and cognitive disease progression.

Higher odds of dementia, MCI in women

According to the paper, AF is associated with higher odds of dementia (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-7.37) in women and MCI in women (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.55-7.55) compared with men.

Women with AF and normal cognition at baseline had a higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) from normal to MCI and from MCI to vascular dementia (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.89-5.65) than that of men with AF or men and women without AF. 

AF is a major public health problem linked with stroke and heart failure, and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality. It is associated with higher risk of cognitive impairment and dementia independent of stroke history.
 

Cognitive screening for AF patients

The authors wrote that cognitive screening, especially in women, should be part of yearly cardiology visits for patients with AF to help identify early those at highest risk for cognitive disease.

T. Jared Bunch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in an interview, “We have learned that how we treat atrial fibrillation can influence risk.”

First, he said, outcomes, including brain health, are better when rhythm control approaches are used within the first year of diagnosis. 

“Restoring a normal heart rhythm improves brain perfusion and cognitive function. Next, aggressive rhythm control – such as catheter ablation – is associated with much lower long-term risks of dementia in the [patients].  Finally, early and effective use of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation lowers risk of stroke, dementia, and cognitive decline.”
 

Several factors unknown

Dr. Bunch said there are some unknowns in the study, such as how long patients were in atrial fibrillation. 

He said one way to address the inequities is to refer women earlier as women are often referred later in disease to specialty care, which can have consequences.

He said it is not known how many people underwent early and effective rhythm control. 

“Women also are less likely to receive catheter ablation, a cardioversion, or be placed on antiarrhythmic drugs,” said Dr. Bunch, who was not part of the study. “These also represent potential opportunities to improve outcomes by treating the rhythm in a similar and aggressive manner in both men and women.”

Also unknown is how many people were on effective oral anticoagulation, Dr. Bunch noted.

The study importantly highlights a significant problem surrounding the care of women with AF, he said, but there are strategies to improve outcomes.

In addition to earlier screening and referral for women, providers should recognize that men and women may present differently with different AF symptoms. He added that physicians should offer catheter ablation, the most effective treatment, equally to men and women who are candidates.

In all people, he said, it’s important “to start anticoagulation very early in the disease to lower the risk of micro- and macrothrombotic events that lead to poor brain health and function.”

The study authors and Dr. Bunch declared no relevant financial relationships.

New data suggest a significantly stronger link in women compared with men between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.

“Our findings imply that women with AF may be at higher risk for MCI and dementia with potentially more rapid disease progression from normal cognition to MCI or dementia than women without AF or men with and without AF,” wrote authors of a new study led by Kathryn A. Wood, PhD, RN, Neil Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University in Atlanta.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center data with 43,630 patients and analyzed sex differences between men and women with AF and their performance on neuropsychological tests and cognitive disease progression.

Higher odds of dementia, MCI in women

According to the paper, AF is associated with higher odds of dementia (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-7.37) in women and MCI in women (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.55-7.55) compared with men.

Women with AF and normal cognition at baseline had a higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) from normal to MCI and from MCI to vascular dementia (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.89-5.65) than that of men with AF or men and women without AF. 

AF is a major public health problem linked with stroke and heart failure, and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality. It is associated with higher risk of cognitive impairment and dementia independent of stroke history.
 

Cognitive screening for AF patients

The authors wrote that cognitive screening, especially in women, should be part of yearly cardiology visits for patients with AF to help identify early those at highest risk for cognitive disease.

T. Jared Bunch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in an interview, “We have learned that how we treat atrial fibrillation can influence risk.”

First, he said, outcomes, including brain health, are better when rhythm control approaches are used within the first year of diagnosis. 

“Restoring a normal heart rhythm improves brain perfusion and cognitive function. Next, aggressive rhythm control – such as catheter ablation – is associated with much lower long-term risks of dementia in the [patients].  Finally, early and effective use of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation lowers risk of stroke, dementia, and cognitive decline.”
 

Several factors unknown

Dr. Bunch said there are some unknowns in the study, such as how long patients were in atrial fibrillation. 

He said one way to address the inequities is to refer women earlier as women are often referred later in disease to specialty care, which can have consequences.

He said it is not known how many people underwent early and effective rhythm control. 

“Women also are less likely to receive catheter ablation, a cardioversion, or be placed on antiarrhythmic drugs,” said Dr. Bunch, who was not part of the study. “These also represent potential opportunities to improve outcomes by treating the rhythm in a similar and aggressive manner in both men and women.”

Also unknown is how many people were on effective oral anticoagulation, Dr. Bunch noted.

The study importantly highlights a significant problem surrounding the care of women with AF, he said, but there are strategies to improve outcomes.

In addition to earlier screening and referral for women, providers should recognize that men and women may present differently with different AF symptoms. He added that physicians should offer catheter ablation, the most effective treatment, equally to men and women who are candidates.

In all people, he said, it’s important “to start anticoagulation very early in the disease to lower the risk of micro- and macrothrombotic events that lead to poor brain health and function.”

The study authors and Dr. Bunch declared no relevant financial relationships.

New data suggest a significantly stronger link in women compared with men between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia.

“Our findings imply that women with AF may be at higher risk for MCI and dementia with potentially more rapid disease progression from normal cognition to MCI or dementia than women without AF or men with and without AF,” wrote authors of a new study led by Kathryn A. Wood, PhD, RN, Neil Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University in Atlanta.

The findings were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center data with 43,630 patients and analyzed sex differences between men and women with AF and their performance on neuropsychological tests and cognitive disease progression.

Higher odds of dementia, MCI in women

According to the paper, AF is associated with higher odds of dementia (odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-7.37) in women and MCI in women (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.55-7.55) compared with men.

Women with AF and normal cognition at baseline had a higher risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50) from normal to MCI and from MCI to vascular dementia (HR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.89-5.65) than that of men with AF or men and women without AF. 

AF is a major public health problem linked with stroke and heart failure, and is an independent risk factor of increased mortality. It is associated with higher risk of cognitive impairment and dementia independent of stroke history.
 

Cognitive screening for AF patients

The authors wrote that cognitive screening, especially in women, should be part of yearly cardiology visits for patients with AF to help identify early those at highest risk for cognitive disease.

T. Jared Bunch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in an interview, “We have learned that how we treat atrial fibrillation can influence risk.”

First, he said, outcomes, including brain health, are better when rhythm control approaches are used within the first year of diagnosis. 

“Restoring a normal heart rhythm improves brain perfusion and cognitive function. Next, aggressive rhythm control – such as catheter ablation – is associated with much lower long-term risks of dementia in the [patients].  Finally, early and effective use of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation lowers risk of stroke, dementia, and cognitive decline.”
 

Several factors unknown

Dr. Bunch said there are some unknowns in the study, such as how long patients were in atrial fibrillation. 

He said one way to address the inequities is to refer women earlier as women are often referred later in disease to specialty care, which can have consequences.

He said it is not known how many people underwent early and effective rhythm control. 

“Women also are less likely to receive catheter ablation, a cardioversion, or be placed on antiarrhythmic drugs,” said Dr. Bunch, who was not part of the study. “These also represent potential opportunities to improve outcomes by treating the rhythm in a similar and aggressive manner in both men and women.”

Also unknown is how many people were on effective oral anticoagulation, Dr. Bunch noted.

The study importantly highlights a significant problem surrounding the care of women with AF, he said, but there are strategies to improve outcomes.

In addition to earlier screening and referral for women, providers should recognize that men and women may present differently with different AF symptoms. He added that physicians should offer catheter ablation, the most effective treatment, equally to men and women who are candidates.

In all people, he said, it’s important “to start anticoagulation very early in the disease to lower the risk of micro- and macrothrombotic events that lead to poor brain health and function.”

The study authors and Dr. Bunch declared no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – Weekly tirzepatide injections in adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity safely led to 12.8%-14.7% in-trial weight loss after 72 weeks in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.

Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.

“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’

Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial. 

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)

“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.

This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
 

Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.

Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.

“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.

But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive. 
 

Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’

Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.

“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”

“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.

SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
 

In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%

The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.

The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.

A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.

The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
 

Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia

The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.

Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.

The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.

The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.



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

SAN DIEGO – Weekly tirzepatide injections in adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity safely led to 12.8%-14.7% in-trial weight loss after 72 weeks in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.

Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.

“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’

Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial. 

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)

“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.

This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
 

Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.

Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.

“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.

But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive. 
 

Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’

Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.

“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”

“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.

SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
 

In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%

The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.

The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.

A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.

The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
 

Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia

The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.

Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.

The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.

The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.



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

SAN DIEGO – Weekly tirzepatide injections in adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity safely led to 12.8%-14.7% in-trial weight loss after 72 weeks in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.

Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.

“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’

Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial. 

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)

“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.

This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
 

Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.

Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.

“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.

But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive. 
 

Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’

Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.

“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”

“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.

SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
 

In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%

The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.

The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.

A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.

The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
 

Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia

The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.

Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.

The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.

The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.



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

The Food and Drug Administration approved ritlecitinib on June 23 for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older, the manufacturer announced.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3). The recommended dose of ritlecitinib, which will be marketed as Litfulo, is 50 mg once a day, according to the statement announcing the approval from Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

It is the second JAK inhibitor approved for treating alopecia areata, following approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) in June 2022 for AA in adults. Ritlecitinib is the first JAK inhibitor approved for children ages 12 and older with AA.  

The European Medicines Agency has also accepted the Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib in the same population and a decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
 

Approval based on ALLEGRO trials

Approval was based on  previously announced results from trials, including the phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study of ritlecitinib in 718 patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata, with 50% of more scalp hair loss, as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT), including patients with alopecia totalis (complete scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (complete scalp, face, and body hair loss).

Patients in the trial were experiencing a current episode of alopecia areata that had lasted between 6 months and 10 years. They were randomized to receive once-daily ritlecitinib at doses of 30 mg or 50 mg (with or without 1 month of initial treatment with once-daily ritlecitinib 200 mg), ritlecitinib 10 mg, or placebo.

Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with ritlecitinib 30 mg and 50 mg (with or without the loading dose) had 80% or more scalp hair coverage, as measured by a SALT score of 20 or less after 6 months of treatment versus placebo. After 6 months of treatment, among those on the 50-mg dose, 23% had achieved a SALT score of 20 or less, compared with 2% of those on placebo. The results were published in The Lancet.

According to the company release, efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib was consistent between those ages 12-17 and adults, and the most common adverse events reported in the study, in at least 4% of patients treated with ritlecitinib, were headache (10.8%), diarrhea (10%), acne (6.2%), rash (5.4%), and urticaria (4.6%). 

Ritlecitinib labeling includes the boxed warning about the risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, which is included in the labels for other JAK inhibitors.
 

Ritlecitinib evaluated for other diseases

In addition to alopecia areata, ritlecitinib has shown efficacy and acceptable safety in treating ulcerative colitis and is being evaluated for treating vitiligo, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

In the statement, the company says that ritlecitinib will be available “in the coming weeks.” The manufacturer says it also has completed regulatory submissions for ritlecitinib in the United Kingdom, China, and Japan, and expects decisions this year.

Alopecia areata affects about 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million globally.

In a statement, Nicole Friedland, president and CEO of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, said that NAAF “is thrilled to have a second FDA-approved treatment for alopecia areata, which is the first approved for adolescents.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved ritlecitinib on June 23 for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older, the manufacturer announced.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3). The recommended dose of ritlecitinib, which will be marketed as Litfulo, is 50 mg once a day, according to the statement announcing the approval from Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

It is the second JAK inhibitor approved for treating alopecia areata, following approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) in June 2022 for AA in adults. Ritlecitinib is the first JAK inhibitor approved for children ages 12 and older with AA.  

The European Medicines Agency has also accepted the Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib in the same population and a decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
 

Approval based on ALLEGRO trials

Approval was based on  previously announced results from trials, including the phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study of ritlecitinib in 718 patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata, with 50% of more scalp hair loss, as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT), including patients with alopecia totalis (complete scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (complete scalp, face, and body hair loss).

Patients in the trial were experiencing a current episode of alopecia areata that had lasted between 6 months and 10 years. They were randomized to receive once-daily ritlecitinib at doses of 30 mg or 50 mg (with or without 1 month of initial treatment with once-daily ritlecitinib 200 mg), ritlecitinib 10 mg, or placebo.

Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with ritlecitinib 30 mg and 50 mg (with or without the loading dose) had 80% or more scalp hair coverage, as measured by a SALT score of 20 or less after 6 months of treatment versus placebo. After 6 months of treatment, among those on the 50-mg dose, 23% had achieved a SALT score of 20 or less, compared with 2% of those on placebo. The results were published in The Lancet.

According to the company release, efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib was consistent between those ages 12-17 and adults, and the most common adverse events reported in the study, in at least 4% of patients treated with ritlecitinib, were headache (10.8%), diarrhea (10%), acne (6.2%), rash (5.4%), and urticaria (4.6%). 

Ritlecitinib labeling includes the boxed warning about the risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, which is included in the labels for other JAK inhibitors.
 

Ritlecitinib evaluated for other diseases

In addition to alopecia areata, ritlecitinib has shown efficacy and acceptable safety in treating ulcerative colitis and is being evaluated for treating vitiligo, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

In the statement, the company says that ritlecitinib will be available “in the coming weeks.” The manufacturer says it also has completed regulatory submissions for ritlecitinib in the United Kingdom, China, and Japan, and expects decisions this year.

Alopecia areata affects about 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million globally.

In a statement, Nicole Friedland, president and CEO of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, said that NAAF “is thrilled to have a second FDA-approved treatment for alopecia areata, which is the first approved for adolescents.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved ritlecitinib on June 23 for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in people ages 12 and older, the manufacturer announced.

Taken as a once-daily pill, ritlecitinib is a dual inhibitor of the TEC family of tyrosine kinases and of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3). The recommended dose of ritlecitinib, which will be marketed as Litfulo, is 50 mg once a day, according to the statement announcing the approval from Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

It is the second JAK inhibitor approved for treating alopecia areata, following approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) in June 2022 for AA in adults. Ritlecitinib is the first JAK inhibitor approved for children ages 12 and older with AA.  

The European Medicines Agency has also accepted the Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib in the same population and a decision is expected in the fourth quarter of this year.
 

Approval based on ALLEGRO trials

Approval was based on  previously announced results from trials, including the phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study of ritlecitinib in 718 patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata, with 50% of more scalp hair loss, as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT), including patients with alopecia totalis (complete scalp hair loss) and alopecia universalis (complete scalp, face, and body hair loss).

Patients in the trial were experiencing a current episode of alopecia areata that had lasted between 6 months and 10 years. They were randomized to receive once-daily ritlecitinib at doses of 30 mg or 50 mg (with or without 1 month of initial treatment with once-daily ritlecitinib 200 mg), ritlecitinib 10 mg, or placebo.

Statistically significantly higher proportions of patients treated with ritlecitinib 30 mg and 50 mg (with or without the loading dose) had 80% or more scalp hair coverage, as measured by a SALT score of 20 or less after 6 months of treatment versus placebo. After 6 months of treatment, among those on the 50-mg dose, 23% had achieved a SALT score of 20 or less, compared with 2% of those on placebo. The results were published in The Lancet.

According to the company release, efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib was consistent between those ages 12-17 and adults, and the most common adverse events reported in the study, in at least 4% of patients treated with ritlecitinib, were headache (10.8%), diarrhea (10%), acne (6.2%), rash (5.4%), and urticaria (4.6%). 

Ritlecitinib labeling includes the boxed warning about the risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis, which is included in the labels for other JAK inhibitors.
 

Ritlecitinib evaluated for other diseases

In addition to alopecia areata, ritlecitinib has shown efficacy and acceptable safety in treating ulcerative colitis and is being evaluated for treating vitiligo, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.

In the statement, the company says that ritlecitinib will be available “in the coming weeks.” The manufacturer says it also has completed regulatory submissions for ritlecitinib in the United Kingdom, China, and Japan, and expects decisions this year.

Alopecia areata affects about 6.8 million people in the United States and 147 million globally.

In a statement, Nicole Friedland, president and CEO of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, said that NAAF “is thrilled to have a second FDA-approved treatment for alopecia areata, which is the first approved for adolescents.”

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

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

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

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

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

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

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

Omitting race and ethnicity from colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence risk prediction models could decrease their accuracy and fairness, particularly for minority groups, potentially leading to inappropriate care advice and contributing to existing health disparities, new research suggests.

“Our study has important implications for developing clinical algorithms that are both accurate and fair,” write first author Sara Khor, MASc, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

“Many groups have called for the removal of race in clinical algorithms,” Dr. Khor said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand, using CRC recurrence as a case study, what some of the implications might be if we simply remove race as a predictor in a risk prediction algorithm.”

Their findings suggest that doing so could lead to higher racial bias in model accuracy and less accurate estimation of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. This could lead to inadequate or inappropriate surveillance and follow-up care more often in patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of data and consensus

There is currently a lack of consensus on whether and how race and ethnicity should be included in clinical risk prediction models used to guide health care decisions, the authors note.

The inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical risk prediction algorithms has come under increased scrutiny, because of concerns over the potential for racial profiling and biased treatment. On the other hand, some argue that excluding race and ethnicity could harm all groups by reducing predictive accuracy and would especially disadvantage minority groups.

It remains unclear whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from algorithms will ultimately improve care decisions for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Dr. Khor and colleagues investigated the performance of four risk prediction models for CRC recurrence using data from 4,230 patients with CRC (53% non-Hispanic white; 22% Hispanic; 13% Black or African American; and 12% Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander).

The four models were:

• A race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor.
• A race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity.
• A model with two-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity.
• Separate models stratified by race and ethnicity.

They found that the race-neutral model had poorer performance (worse calibration, negative predictive value, and false-negative rates) among racial and ethnic minority subgroups, compared with the non-Hispanic subgroup. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 12% vs. 3% for non-Hispanic white patients.

Conversely, including race and ethnicity as a predictor of postoperative cancer recurrence improved the model’s accuracy and increased “algorithmic fairness” in terms of calibration slope, discriminative ability, positive predictive value, and false-negative rates. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 9% and 8% for non-Hispanic white patients.

The inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups, the authors add.
 

‘No one-size-fits-all answer’

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether race/ethnicity should be included, because the health disparity consequences that can result from each clinical decision are different,” Dr. Khor told this news organization.

“The downstream harms and benefits of including or excluding race will need to be carefully considered in each case,” Dr. Khor said.

“When developing a clinical risk prediction algorithm, one should consider the potential racial/ethnic biases present in clinical practice, which translate to bias in the data,” Dr. Khor added. “Care must be taken to think through the implications of such biases during the algorithm development and evaluation process in order to avoid further propagating those biases.”

The coauthors of a linked commentary say this study “highlights current challenges in measuring and addressing algorithmic bias, with implications for both patient care and health policy decision-making.”

Ankur Pandya, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Jinyi Zhu, PhD, with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution” – such as always excluding race and ethnicity from risk models – to confronting algorithmic bias.

“When possible, approaches for identifying and responding to algorithmic bias should focus on the decisions made by patients and policymakers as they relate to the ultimate outcomes of interest (such as length of life, quality of life, and costs) and the distribution of these outcomes across the subgroups that define important health disparities,” Dr. Pandya and Dr. Zhu suggest.

“What is most promising,” they write, is the high level of engagement from researchers, philosophers, policymakers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients to this cause in recent years, “suggesting that algorithmic bias will not be left unchecked as access to unprecedented amounts of data and methods continues to increase moving forward.”

This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omitting race and ethnicity from colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence risk prediction models could decrease their accuracy and fairness, particularly for minority groups, potentially leading to inappropriate care advice and contributing to existing health disparities, new research suggests.

“Our study has important implications for developing clinical algorithms that are both accurate and fair,” write first author Sara Khor, MASc, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

“Many groups have called for the removal of race in clinical algorithms,” Dr. Khor said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand, using CRC recurrence as a case study, what some of the implications might be if we simply remove race as a predictor in a risk prediction algorithm.”

Their findings suggest that doing so could lead to higher racial bias in model accuracy and less accurate estimation of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. This could lead to inadequate or inappropriate surveillance and follow-up care more often in patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of data and consensus

There is currently a lack of consensus on whether and how race and ethnicity should be included in clinical risk prediction models used to guide health care decisions, the authors note.

The inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical risk prediction algorithms has come under increased scrutiny, because of concerns over the potential for racial profiling and biased treatment. On the other hand, some argue that excluding race and ethnicity could harm all groups by reducing predictive accuracy and would especially disadvantage minority groups.

It remains unclear whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from algorithms will ultimately improve care decisions for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Dr. Khor and colleagues investigated the performance of four risk prediction models for CRC recurrence using data from 4,230 patients with CRC (53% non-Hispanic white; 22% Hispanic; 13% Black or African American; and 12% Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander).

The four models were:

• A race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor.
• A race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity.
• A model with two-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity.
• Separate models stratified by race and ethnicity.

They found that the race-neutral model had poorer performance (worse calibration, negative predictive value, and false-negative rates) among racial and ethnic minority subgroups, compared with the non-Hispanic subgroup. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 12% vs. 3% for non-Hispanic white patients.

Conversely, including race and ethnicity as a predictor of postoperative cancer recurrence improved the model’s accuracy and increased “algorithmic fairness” in terms of calibration slope, discriminative ability, positive predictive value, and false-negative rates. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 9% and 8% for non-Hispanic white patients.

The inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups, the authors add.
 

‘No one-size-fits-all answer’

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether race/ethnicity should be included, because the health disparity consequences that can result from each clinical decision are different,” Dr. Khor told this news organization.

“The downstream harms and benefits of including or excluding race will need to be carefully considered in each case,” Dr. Khor said.

“When developing a clinical risk prediction algorithm, one should consider the potential racial/ethnic biases present in clinical practice, which translate to bias in the data,” Dr. Khor added. “Care must be taken to think through the implications of such biases during the algorithm development and evaluation process in order to avoid further propagating those biases.”

The coauthors of a linked commentary say this study “highlights current challenges in measuring and addressing algorithmic bias, with implications for both patient care and health policy decision-making.”

Ankur Pandya, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Jinyi Zhu, PhD, with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution” – such as always excluding race and ethnicity from risk models – to confronting algorithmic bias.

“When possible, approaches for identifying and responding to algorithmic bias should focus on the decisions made by patients and policymakers as they relate to the ultimate outcomes of interest (such as length of life, quality of life, and costs) and the distribution of these outcomes across the subgroups that define important health disparities,” Dr. Pandya and Dr. Zhu suggest.

“What is most promising,” they write, is the high level of engagement from researchers, philosophers, policymakers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients to this cause in recent years, “suggesting that algorithmic bias will not be left unchecked as access to unprecedented amounts of data and methods continues to increase moving forward.”

This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omitting race and ethnicity from colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence risk prediction models could decrease their accuracy and fairness, particularly for minority groups, potentially leading to inappropriate care advice and contributing to existing health disparities, new research suggests.

“Our study has important implications for developing clinical algorithms that are both accurate and fair,” write first author Sara Khor, MASc, with University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues.

“Many groups have called for the removal of race in clinical algorithms,” Dr. Khor said in an interview. “We wanted to better understand, using CRC recurrence as a case study, what some of the implications might be if we simply remove race as a predictor in a risk prediction algorithm.”

Their findings suggest that doing so could lead to higher racial bias in model accuracy and less accurate estimation of risk for racial and ethnic minority groups. This could lead to inadequate or inappropriate surveillance and follow-up care more often in patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of data and consensus

There is currently a lack of consensus on whether and how race and ethnicity should be included in clinical risk prediction models used to guide health care decisions, the authors note.

The inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical risk prediction algorithms has come under increased scrutiny, because of concerns over the potential for racial profiling and biased treatment. On the other hand, some argue that excluding race and ethnicity could harm all groups by reducing predictive accuracy and would especially disadvantage minority groups.

It remains unclear whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from algorithms will ultimately improve care decisions for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Dr. Khor and colleagues investigated the performance of four risk prediction models for CRC recurrence using data from 4,230 patients with CRC (53% non-Hispanic white; 22% Hispanic; 13% Black or African American; and 12% Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander).

The four models were:

• A race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor.
• A race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity.
• A model with two-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity.
• Separate models stratified by race and ethnicity.

They found that the race-neutral model had poorer performance (worse calibration, negative predictive value, and false-negative rates) among racial and ethnic minority subgroups, compared with the non-Hispanic subgroup. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 12% vs. 3% for non-Hispanic white patients.

Conversely, including race and ethnicity as a predictor of postoperative cancer recurrence improved the model’s accuracy and increased “algorithmic fairness” in terms of calibration slope, discriminative ability, positive predictive value, and false-negative rates. The false-negative rate for Hispanic patients was 9% and 8% for non-Hispanic white patients.

The inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups, the authors add.
 

‘No one-size-fits-all answer’

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether race/ethnicity should be included, because the health disparity consequences that can result from each clinical decision are different,” Dr. Khor told this news organization.

“The downstream harms and benefits of including or excluding race will need to be carefully considered in each case,” Dr. Khor said.

“When developing a clinical risk prediction algorithm, one should consider the potential racial/ethnic biases present in clinical practice, which translate to bias in the data,” Dr. Khor added. “Care must be taken to think through the implications of such biases during the algorithm development and evaluation process in order to avoid further propagating those biases.”

The coauthors of a linked commentary say this study “highlights current challenges in measuring and addressing algorithmic bias, with implications for both patient care and health policy decision-making.”

Ankur Pandya, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and Jinyi Zhu, PhD, with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all solution” – such as always excluding race and ethnicity from risk models – to confronting algorithmic bias.

“When possible, approaches for identifying and responding to algorithmic bias should focus on the decisions made by patients and policymakers as they relate to the ultimate outcomes of interest (such as length of life, quality of life, and costs) and the distribution of these outcomes across the subgroups that define important health disparities,” Dr. Pandya and Dr. Zhu suggest.

“What is most promising,” they write, is the high level of engagement from researchers, philosophers, policymakers, physicians and other healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients to this cause in recent years, “suggesting that algorithmic bias will not be left unchecked as access to unprecedented amounts of data and methods continues to increase moving forward.”

This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and editorial writers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Daily napping may help preserve brain health, new research suggests.

Investigators at University College London, and the University of the Republic of Uruguay, Montevideo, found individuals genetically predisposed to regular napping had larger total brain volume, a surrogate of better cognitive health.

“Our results suggest that napping may improve brain health,” first author Valentina Paz, MSc, a PhD candidate at the University of the Republic of Uruguay said in an interview. “Specifically, our work revealed a 15.8 cubic cm increase in total brain volume with more frequent daytime napping,” she said.

The findings were published online in Sleep Health.
 

Higher brain volume

Previous studies examining the potential link between napping and cognition in older adults have yielded conflicting results.

To clarify this association, Ms. Paz and colleagues used Mendelian randomization to study DNA samples, cognitive outcomes, and functional magnetic resonance imaging data in participants from the ongoing UK Biobank Study.  

Starting with data from 378,932 study participants (mean age 57), investigators compared measures of brain health and cognition of those who are more genetically programmed to nap with people who did not have these genetic variations.

More specifically, the investigators examined 97 sections of genetic code previously linked to the likelihood of regular napping and correlated these results with fMRI and cognitive outcomes between those genetically predisposed to take regular naps and those who weren’t.

Study outcomes included total brain volume, hippocampal volume, reaction time, and visual memory.

The final study sample included 35,080 with neuroimaging, cognitive assessment, and genotype data.

The researchers estimated that the average difference in brain volume between individuals genetically programmed to be habitual nappers and those who were not was equivalent to 15.8 cubic cm, or 2.6-6.5 years of aging.

However, there was no difference in the other three outcomes – hippocampal volume, reaction time, and visual processing – between the two study groups.

Since investigators did not have information on the length of time participants napped, Ms. Paz suggested that “taking a short nap in the early afternoon may help cognition in those needing it.”

However, she added, the study’s findings need to be replicated before any firm conclusions can be made.

“More work is needed to examine the associations between napping and cognition, and the replication of these findings using other datasets and methods,” she said.

The investigators note that the study’s findings augment the knowledge of the “impact of habitual daytime napping on brain health, which is essential to understanding cognitive impairment in the aging population. The lack of evidence for an association between napping and hippocampal volume and cognitive outcomes (for example, alertness) may be affected by habitual daytime napping and should be studied in the future.”
 

Strengths, limitations

Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, president of the British Neuroscience Association and group leader at the UK Dementia Research Institute, said, “the study shows a small but significant increase in brain volume in people who have a genetic signature associated with taking daytime naps.”

Dr. Spires-Jones, who was not involved in the research, noted that while the study is well-conducted, it has limitations. Because Mendelian randomization uses a genetic signature, she noted, outcomes depend on the accuracy of the signature. 

“The napping habits of UK Biobank participants were self-reported, which might not be entirely accurate, and the ‘napping’ signature overlapped substantially with the signature for cognitive outcomes in the study, which makes the causal link weaker,” she said.

“Even with those limitations, this study is interesting because it adds to the data indicating that sleep is important for brain health,” said Dr. Spires-Jones.

The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the British Heart Foundation, and the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. In Uruguay, it was supported by Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas, Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación, Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica, and Comisión Académica de Posgrado. In the United States it was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. There were no disclosures reported.

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

Daily napping may help preserve brain health, new research suggests.

Investigators at University College London, and the University of the Republic of Uruguay, Montevideo, found individuals genetically predisposed to regular napping had larger total brain volume, a surrogate of better cognitive health.

“Our results suggest that napping may improve brain health,” first author Valentina Paz, MSc, a PhD candidate at the University of the Republic of Uruguay said in an interview. “Specifically, our work revealed a 15.8 cubic cm increase in total brain volume with more frequent daytime napping,” she said.

The findings were published online in Sleep Health.
 

Higher brain volume

Previous studies examining the potential link between napping and cognition in older adults have yielded conflicting results.

To clarify this association, Ms. Paz and colleagues used Mendelian randomization to study DNA samples, cognitive outcomes, and functional magnetic resonance imaging data in participants from the ongoing UK Biobank Study.  

Starting with data from 378,932 study participants (mean age 57), investigators compared measures of brain health and cognition of those who are more genetically programmed to nap with people who did not have these genetic variations.

More specifically, the investigators examined 97 sections of genetic code previously linked to the likelihood of regular napping and correlated these results with fMRI and cognitive outcomes between those genetically predisposed to take regular naps and those who weren’t.

Study outcomes included total brain volume, hippocampal volume, reaction time, and visual memory.

The final study sample included 35,080 with neuroimaging, cognitive assessment, and genotype data.

The researchers estimated that the average difference in brain volume between individuals genetically programmed to be habitual nappers and those who were not was equivalent to 15.8 cubic cm, or 2.6-6.5 years of aging.

However, there was no difference in the other three outcomes – hippocampal volume, reaction time, and visual processing – between the two study groups.

Since investigators did not have information on the length of time participants napped, Ms. Paz suggested that “taking a short nap in the early afternoon may help cognition in those needing it.”

However, she added, the study’s findings need to be replicated before any firm conclusions can be made.

“More work is needed to examine the associations between napping and cognition, and the replication of these findings using other datasets and methods,” she said.

The investigators note that the study’s findings augment the knowledge of the “impact of habitual daytime napping on brain health, which is essential to understanding cognitive impairment in the aging population. The lack of evidence for an association between napping and hippocampal volume and cognitive outcomes (for example, alertness) may be affected by habitual daytime napping and should be studied in the future.”
 

Strengths, limitations

Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, president of the British Neuroscience Association and group leader at the UK Dementia Research Institute, said, “the study shows a small but significant increase in brain volume in people who have a genetic signature associated with taking daytime naps.”

Dr. Spires-Jones, who was not involved in the research, noted that while the study is well-conducted, it has limitations. Because Mendelian randomization uses a genetic signature, she noted, outcomes depend on the accuracy of the signature. 

“The napping habits of UK Biobank participants were self-reported, which might not be entirely accurate, and the ‘napping’ signature overlapped substantially with the signature for cognitive outcomes in the study, which makes the causal link weaker,” she said.

“Even with those limitations, this study is interesting because it adds to the data indicating that sleep is important for brain health,” said Dr. Spires-Jones.

The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the British Heart Foundation, and the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. In Uruguay, it was supported by Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas, Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación, Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica, and Comisión Académica de Posgrado. In the United States it was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. There were no disclosures reported.

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

Daily napping may help preserve brain health, new research suggests.

Investigators at University College London, and the University of the Republic of Uruguay, Montevideo, found individuals genetically predisposed to regular napping had larger total brain volume, a surrogate of better cognitive health.

“Our results suggest that napping may improve brain health,” first author Valentina Paz, MSc, a PhD candidate at the University of the Republic of Uruguay said in an interview. “Specifically, our work revealed a 15.8 cubic cm increase in total brain volume with more frequent daytime napping,” she said.

The findings were published online in Sleep Health.
 

Higher brain volume

Previous studies examining the potential link between napping and cognition in older adults have yielded conflicting results.

To clarify this association, Ms. Paz and colleagues used Mendelian randomization to study DNA samples, cognitive outcomes, and functional magnetic resonance imaging data in participants from the ongoing UK Biobank Study.  

Starting with data from 378,932 study participants (mean age 57), investigators compared measures of brain health and cognition of those who are more genetically programmed to nap with people who did not have these genetic variations.

More specifically, the investigators examined 97 sections of genetic code previously linked to the likelihood of regular napping and correlated these results with fMRI and cognitive outcomes between those genetically predisposed to take regular naps and those who weren’t.

Study outcomes included total brain volume, hippocampal volume, reaction time, and visual memory.

The final study sample included 35,080 with neuroimaging, cognitive assessment, and genotype data.

The researchers estimated that the average difference in brain volume between individuals genetically programmed to be habitual nappers and those who were not was equivalent to 15.8 cubic cm, or 2.6-6.5 years of aging.

However, there was no difference in the other three outcomes – hippocampal volume, reaction time, and visual processing – between the two study groups.

Since investigators did not have information on the length of time participants napped, Ms. Paz suggested that “taking a short nap in the early afternoon may help cognition in those needing it.”

However, she added, the study’s findings need to be replicated before any firm conclusions can be made.

“More work is needed to examine the associations between napping and cognition, and the replication of these findings using other datasets and methods,” she said.

The investigators note that the study’s findings augment the knowledge of the “impact of habitual daytime napping on brain health, which is essential to understanding cognitive impairment in the aging population. The lack of evidence for an association between napping and hippocampal volume and cognitive outcomes (for example, alertness) may be affected by habitual daytime napping and should be studied in the future.”
 

Strengths, limitations

Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, president of the British Neuroscience Association and group leader at the UK Dementia Research Institute, said, “the study shows a small but significant increase in brain volume in people who have a genetic signature associated with taking daytime naps.”

Dr. Spires-Jones, who was not involved in the research, noted that while the study is well-conducted, it has limitations. Because Mendelian randomization uses a genetic signature, she noted, outcomes depend on the accuracy of the signature. 

“The napping habits of UK Biobank participants were self-reported, which might not be entirely accurate, and the ‘napping’ signature overlapped substantially with the signature for cognitive outcomes in the study, which makes the causal link weaker,” she said.

“Even with those limitations, this study is interesting because it adds to the data indicating that sleep is important for brain health,” said Dr. Spires-Jones.

The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the British Heart Foundation, and the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. In Uruguay, it was supported by Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas, Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación, Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica, and Comisión Académica de Posgrado. In the United States it was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. There were no disclosures reported.

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

TOPLINE:

The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
• Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
• Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
• Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAYS:

• U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
• These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
• After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.

IN PRACTICE:

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.

LIMITATIONS:

Study could not exclude residual confounding.

Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.

Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.

Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.

Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

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

TOPLINE:

The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
• Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
• Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
• Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAYS:

• U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
• These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
• After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.

IN PRACTICE:

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.

LIMITATIONS:

Study could not exclude residual confounding.

Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.

Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.

Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.

Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

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

TOPLINE:

The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.

METHODOLOGY:

• Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
• Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
• Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
• Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAYS:

• U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
• These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
• After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.

IN PRACTICE:

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.

LIMITATIONS:

Study could not exclude residual confounding.

Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.

Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.

Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.

Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining to approve the investigational antifungal olorofim and is asking for more data, according to a news release from the manufacturer, F2G.

Olorofim, (formerly known as F901318) is the first in the orotomide class of antifungals to be evaluated clinically for the treatment of invasive mold infections. Its maker, F2G, is a biotech company based in Manchester, England, that focuses on developing drugs for rare fungal diseases.

The company says it remains optimistic and will address the FDA’s requirements and continue to seek approval.

The FDA’s denial comes as fungal infections are becoming increasingly common and resistant to treatment. There are only four antifungal classes currently available, and there are few new candidates in the pipeline. No new classes of antifungals have been developed in 2 decades.

David Andes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization he shares the hope that the company can meet the requirements to gain approval.

“Some of the early results were really exciting,” he said. “People are enthusiastic about the compound because it has a novel mechanism of action, and it is active against a group of fungi that we have limited to no options for.”
 

Early results ‘exciting’

Dr. Andes said several physicians have been able to prescribe olorofim under the compassionate use program “and have witnessed success.”

Olorofim is the first antifungal agent to be granted breakthrough therapy designation, which the FDA granted in November 2019 for the treatment of invasive mold infections for patients with limited or no treatment options, including patients with refractory aspergillosis or those who are intolerant of currently available therapy. It is also indicated for infections due to Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium, and Scopulariopsis species.

Olorofim received a second breakthrough therapy designation in October 2020. The second designation was granted for treatment of central nervous system coccidioidomycosis that is refractory or for cases that cannot be treated with standard-of-care therapy.

It is very difficult for patients to be approved to receive compassionate use medicines, Dr. Andes pointed out. “I’d like to have access sooner rather than later,” he added.

Dr. Andes says the drugs are expensive and are time consuming to produce. And with antifungals, it is difficult to demonstrate safety in comparison with other antimicrobial agents because “it’s hard to hurt a fungus without having toxicity with human cells.”
 

Complete response letter issued

F2G received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its new drug application for olorofim, according to the news release issued by the company. “While F2G is disappointed with this outcome, we remain optimistic about olorofim’s potential to address an unmet need for patients with invasive fungal infections who have exhausted their treatment alternatives,” Francesco Maria Lavino, chief executive officer, said in the release. “We are assessing the details of the Complete Response Letter, and we plan to meet with the FDA to discuss it further.”

Dr. Andes says few other antifungals have made it as far as olorofim in clinical trials.

Lance B. Price, PhD, codirector of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University in Washington, told this news organization that despite the lack of antifungals in the pipeline, “We can’t allow our desperation to override the checkpoints that ensure that antifungals are safe to use in people.”

In the meantime, he said, it is important to preserve the utility of current antifungals by avoiding overusing them in medicine and agriculture.

“Sadly,” he said, “a drug called ipflufenoquin, which works by a similar mode of action as olorofim, has already been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in plant agriculture. This could weaken the effectiveness of olorofim for treating things like Aspergillus infections even before the drug has been approved for use in humans.”
 

Plant drug undermining olorofim efficacy in humans

“While I’m sure this makes financial sense for the makers of ipflufenoquin, it borders on insanity from a public health perspective,” Dr. Price said.

Meanwhile, the global threat of fungal infections grows. The World Health Organization has launched its first-ever list of health-threatening fungi. Authors of a WHO report that contains the list write, “The invasive forms of these fungal infections often affect severely ill patients and those with significant underlying immune system–related conditions.”

F2G will continue to expand olorofim’s clinical trial program, according to the company’s statement. Along with its partner, Shionogi, it is enrolling patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis in a global phase 3 trial (OASIS), which will compare outcomes after treatment with olorofim in comparison with amphotericin B liposome (AmBisome) followed by standard of care.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining to approve the investigational antifungal olorofim and is asking for more data, according to a news release from the manufacturer, F2G.

Olorofim, (formerly known as F901318) is the first in the orotomide class of antifungals to be evaluated clinically for the treatment of invasive mold infections. Its maker, F2G, is a biotech company based in Manchester, England, that focuses on developing drugs for rare fungal diseases.

The company says it remains optimistic and will address the FDA’s requirements and continue to seek approval.

The FDA’s denial comes as fungal infections are becoming increasingly common and resistant to treatment. There are only four antifungal classes currently available, and there are few new candidates in the pipeline. No new classes of antifungals have been developed in 2 decades.

David Andes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization he shares the hope that the company can meet the requirements to gain approval.

“Some of the early results were really exciting,” he said. “People are enthusiastic about the compound because it has a novel mechanism of action, and it is active against a group of fungi that we have limited to no options for.”
 

Early results ‘exciting’

Dr. Andes said several physicians have been able to prescribe olorofim under the compassionate use program “and have witnessed success.”

Olorofim is the first antifungal agent to be granted breakthrough therapy designation, which the FDA granted in November 2019 for the treatment of invasive mold infections for patients with limited or no treatment options, including patients with refractory aspergillosis or those who are intolerant of currently available therapy. It is also indicated for infections due to Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium, and Scopulariopsis species.

Olorofim received a second breakthrough therapy designation in October 2020. The second designation was granted for treatment of central nervous system coccidioidomycosis that is refractory or for cases that cannot be treated with standard-of-care therapy.

It is very difficult for patients to be approved to receive compassionate use medicines, Dr. Andes pointed out. “I’d like to have access sooner rather than later,” he added.

Dr. Andes says the drugs are expensive and are time consuming to produce. And with antifungals, it is difficult to demonstrate safety in comparison with other antimicrobial agents because “it’s hard to hurt a fungus without having toxicity with human cells.”
 

Complete response letter issued

F2G received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its new drug application for olorofim, according to the news release issued by the company. “While F2G is disappointed with this outcome, we remain optimistic about olorofim’s potential to address an unmet need for patients with invasive fungal infections who have exhausted their treatment alternatives,” Francesco Maria Lavino, chief executive officer, said in the release. “We are assessing the details of the Complete Response Letter, and we plan to meet with the FDA to discuss it further.”

Dr. Andes says few other antifungals have made it as far as olorofim in clinical trials.

Lance B. Price, PhD, codirector of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University in Washington, told this news organization that despite the lack of antifungals in the pipeline, “We can’t allow our desperation to override the checkpoints that ensure that antifungals are safe to use in people.”

In the meantime, he said, it is important to preserve the utility of current antifungals by avoiding overusing them in medicine and agriculture.

“Sadly,” he said, “a drug called ipflufenoquin, which works by a similar mode of action as olorofim, has already been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in plant agriculture. This could weaken the effectiveness of olorofim for treating things like Aspergillus infections even before the drug has been approved for use in humans.”
 

Plant drug undermining olorofim efficacy in humans

“While I’m sure this makes financial sense for the makers of ipflufenoquin, it borders on insanity from a public health perspective,” Dr. Price said.

Meanwhile, the global threat of fungal infections grows. The World Health Organization has launched its first-ever list of health-threatening fungi. Authors of a WHO report that contains the list write, “The invasive forms of these fungal infections often affect severely ill patients and those with significant underlying immune system–related conditions.”

F2G will continue to expand olorofim’s clinical trial program, according to the company’s statement. Along with its partner, Shionogi, it is enrolling patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis in a global phase 3 trial (OASIS), which will compare outcomes after treatment with olorofim in comparison with amphotericin B liposome (AmBisome) followed by standard of care.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is declining to approve the investigational antifungal olorofim and is asking for more data, according to a news release from the manufacturer, F2G.

Olorofim, (formerly known as F901318) is the first in the orotomide class of antifungals to be evaluated clinically for the treatment of invasive mold infections. Its maker, F2G, is a biotech company based in Manchester, England, that focuses on developing drugs for rare fungal diseases.

The company says it remains optimistic and will address the FDA’s requirements and continue to seek approval.

The FDA’s denial comes as fungal infections are becoming increasingly common and resistant to treatment. There are only four antifungal classes currently available, and there are few new candidates in the pipeline. No new classes of antifungals have been developed in 2 decades.

David Andes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization he shares the hope that the company can meet the requirements to gain approval.

“Some of the early results were really exciting,” he said. “People are enthusiastic about the compound because it has a novel mechanism of action, and it is active against a group of fungi that we have limited to no options for.”
 

Early results ‘exciting’

Dr. Andes said several physicians have been able to prescribe olorofim under the compassionate use program “and have witnessed success.”

Olorofim is the first antifungal agent to be granted breakthrough therapy designation, which the FDA granted in November 2019 for the treatment of invasive mold infections for patients with limited or no treatment options, including patients with refractory aspergillosis or those who are intolerant of currently available therapy. It is also indicated for infections due to Lomentospora prolificans, Scedosporium, and Scopulariopsis species.

Olorofim received a second breakthrough therapy designation in October 2020. The second designation was granted for treatment of central nervous system coccidioidomycosis that is refractory or for cases that cannot be treated with standard-of-care therapy.

It is very difficult for patients to be approved to receive compassionate use medicines, Dr. Andes pointed out. “I’d like to have access sooner rather than later,” he added.

Dr. Andes says the drugs are expensive and are time consuming to produce. And with antifungals, it is difficult to demonstrate safety in comparison with other antimicrobial agents because “it’s hard to hurt a fungus without having toxicity with human cells.”
 

Complete response letter issued

F2G received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its new drug application for olorofim, according to the news release issued by the company. “While F2G is disappointed with this outcome, we remain optimistic about olorofim’s potential to address an unmet need for patients with invasive fungal infections who have exhausted their treatment alternatives,” Francesco Maria Lavino, chief executive officer, said in the release. “We are assessing the details of the Complete Response Letter, and we plan to meet with the FDA to discuss it further.”

Dr. Andes says few other antifungals have made it as far as olorofim in clinical trials.

Lance B. Price, PhD, codirector of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at George Washington University in Washington, told this news organization that despite the lack of antifungals in the pipeline, “We can’t allow our desperation to override the checkpoints that ensure that antifungals are safe to use in people.”

In the meantime, he said, it is important to preserve the utility of current antifungals by avoiding overusing them in medicine and agriculture.

“Sadly,” he said, “a drug called ipflufenoquin, which works by a similar mode of action as olorofim, has already been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in plant agriculture. This could weaken the effectiveness of olorofim for treating things like Aspergillus infections even before the drug has been approved for use in humans.”
 

Plant drug undermining olorofim efficacy in humans

“While I’m sure this makes financial sense for the makers of ipflufenoquin, it borders on insanity from a public health perspective,” Dr. Price said.

Meanwhile, the global threat of fungal infections grows. The World Health Organization has launched its first-ever list of health-threatening fungi. Authors of a WHO report that contains the list write, “The invasive forms of these fungal infections often affect severely ill patients and those with significant underlying immune system–related conditions.”

F2G will continue to expand olorofim’s clinical trial program, according to the company’s statement. Along with its partner, Shionogi, it is enrolling patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis in a global phase 3 trial (OASIS), which will compare outcomes after treatment with olorofim in comparison with amphotericin B liposome (AmBisome) followed by standard of care.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Art Caplan, PhD. I’m at the division of medical ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.

An interesting situation has arisen that many doctors who do physical examinations and primary care are facing, which is whether a chaperone has to be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area.

In some institutions, there has been a movement toward saying a chaperone must be present, that it’s mandatory. I know that is true at Yale’s health care centers and clinics. Others do so when the patient requests it. An interesting situation sometimes occurs when the hospital or the clinic requires a chaperone but the patient says, “I don’t want a chaperone. I want my privacy. I want the gynecologist or the urologist only. I don’t want anyone else to be seeing me. I’m not comfortable with anyone other than the doctor in the room.”

Complicating this issue of when is a chaperone appropriate and when can it be refused, if ever, is the fact that the role of chaperone is ill defined. For example, there isn’t really agreement on who can be a chaperone. Could it be a medical student? Could it be a nurse? Could it be another doctor? Should it be someone who at least has finished nursing school or medical school? Can it be a patient representative? There are no standards about who can play the role.

Should the chaperone be available to be seen when they’re in the room? Should they stay behind a curtain or somewhere where they’re not, so to speak, intrusive into what’s going on in the exam room? Do they sit in a chair? Do they stand? How do they behave, if you will? There’s no agreement.

There’s still no agreement on the training that a chaperone should have. Do we charge them with trying to represent what’s going on with the patient or trying to protect the doctor against any accusations that are ill founded about inappropriate conduct? Are they supposed to do both? How do they obtain consent, if they do, from the patient undergoing an examination in a sensitive part of their body or one that they’re sensitive about?

This area really requires some hard thinking if you’re considering having chaperones present. I think there are some online courses that offer some training. I haven’t looked at them, but they might be worth a look to see if they make you more comfortable about getting a chaperone oriented. I think it’s probably important to set a policy saying a chaperone must always be present for these kinds of examinations and list them, or one can be requested no matter what is going on in terms of the kind of exam being conducted.

There needs to be some statement saying that you have permission to either accept them or refuse them – or you don’t. Should they always be present, for example, with patients who are minors, adolescents or children? Does that extend that far out where a guardian, parent, or someone has to give permission?

In this area, I think we can all understand why chaperones have come to the fore, including allegations of misconduct and inappropriate touching, and considering comfort levels of patients to just put them more at ease. It’s obvious that we haven’t, as a nation or a medical profession, thought it through to the degree to which we have to.

I’m certainly not anti-chaperone, and I believe that if patients are more comfortable having one present, or a doctor is more comfortable having one present, or if we all agree that there are certain patients – kids – where certain types of examinations require or ought to expect the chaperone to be present, that’s wonderful.

We’ve got to lay out the rights of the doctors. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the institutions. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the patients. We should agree on who these people are. We should agree on how they’re trained.

We’ve got some work ahead of us if we’re going to have chaperones become a standard part of the medical examination.

Dr. Kaplan reported conflicts of interest with the Franklin Institute, Tengion, Biogen Idec, Johnson & Johnson, and PriCara.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Art Caplan, PhD. I’m at the division of medical ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.

An interesting situation has arisen that many doctors who do physical examinations and primary care are facing, which is whether a chaperone has to be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area.

In some institutions, there has been a movement toward saying a chaperone must be present, that it’s mandatory. I know that is true at Yale’s health care centers and clinics. Others do so when the patient requests it. An interesting situation sometimes occurs when the hospital or the clinic requires a chaperone but the patient says, “I don’t want a chaperone. I want my privacy. I want the gynecologist or the urologist only. I don’t want anyone else to be seeing me. I’m not comfortable with anyone other than the doctor in the room.”

Complicating this issue of when is a chaperone appropriate and when can it be refused, if ever, is the fact that the role of chaperone is ill defined. For example, there isn’t really agreement on who can be a chaperone. Could it be a medical student? Could it be a nurse? Could it be another doctor? Should it be someone who at least has finished nursing school or medical school? Can it be a patient representative? There are no standards about who can play the role.

Should the chaperone be available to be seen when they’re in the room? Should they stay behind a curtain or somewhere where they’re not, so to speak, intrusive into what’s going on in the exam room? Do they sit in a chair? Do they stand? How do they behave, if you will? There’s no agreement.

There’s still no agreement on the training that a chaperone should have. Do we charge them with trying to represent what’s going on with the patient or trying to protect the doctor against any accusations that are ill founded about inappropriate conduct? Are they supposed to do both? How do they obtain consent, if they do, from the patient undergoing an examination in a sensitive part of their body or one that they’re sensitive about?

This area really requires some hard thinking if you’re considering having chaperones present. I think there are some online courses that offer some training. I haven’t looked at them, but they might be worth a look to see if they make you more comfortable about getting a chaperone oriented. I think it’s probably important to set a policy saying a chaperone must always be present for these kinds of examinations and list them, or one can be requested no matter what is going on in terms of the kind of exam being conducted.

There needs to be some statement saying that you have permission to either accept them or refuse them – or you don’t. Should they always be present, for example, with patients who are minors, adolescents or children? Does that extend that far out where a guardian, parent, or someone has to give permission?

In this area, I think we can all understand why chaperones have come to the fore, including allegations of misconduct and inappropriate touching, and considering comfort levels of patients to just put them more at ease. It’s obvious that we haven’t, as a nation or a medical profession, thought it through to the degree to which we have to.

I’m certainly not anti-chaperone, and I believe that if patients are more comfortable having one present, or a doctor is more comfortable having one present, or if we all agree that there are certain patients – kids – where certain types of examinations require or ought to expect the chaperone to be present, that’s wonderful.

We’ve got to lay out the rights of the doctors. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the institutions. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the patients. We should agree on who these people are. We should agree on how they’re trained.

We’ve got some work ahead of us if we’re going to have chaperones become a standard part of the medical examination.

Dr. Kaplan reported conflicts of interest with the Franklin Institute, Tengion, Biogen Idec, Johnson & Johnson, and PriCara.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Art Caplan, PhD. I’m at the division of medical ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine.

An interesting situation has arisen that many doctors who do physical examinations and primary care are facing, which is whether a chaperone has to be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area.

In some institutions, there has been a movement toward saying a chaperone must be present, that it’s mandatory. I know that is true at Yale’s health care centers and clinics. Others do so when the patient requests it. An interesting situation sometimes occurs when the hospital or the clinic requires a chaperone but the patient says, “I don’t want a chaperone. I want my privacy. I want the gynecologist or the urologist only. I don’t want anyone else to be seeing me. I’m not comfortable with anyone other than the doctor in the room.”

Complicating this issue of when is a chaperone appropriate and when can it be refused, if ever, is the fact that the role of chaperone is ill defined. For example, there isn’t really agreement on who can be a chaperone. Could it be a medical student? Could it be a nurse? Could it be another doctor? Should it be someone who at least has finished nursing school or medical school? Can it be a patient representative? There are no standards about who can play the role.

Should the chaperone be available to be seen when they’re in the room? Should they stay behind a curtain or somewhere where they’re not, so to speak, intrusive into what’s going on in the exam room? Do they sit in a chair? Do they stand? How do they behave, if you will? There’s no agreement.

There’s still no agreement on the training that a chaperone should have. Do we charge them with trying to represent what’s going on with the patient or trying to protect the doctor against any accusations that are ill founded about inappropriate conduct? Are they supposed to do both? How do they obtain consent, if they do, from the patient undergoing an examination in a sensitive part of their body or one that they’re sensitive about?

This area really requires some hard thinking if you’re considering having chaperones present. I think there are some online courses that offer some training. I haven’t looked at them, but they might be worth a look to see if they make you more comfortable about getting a chaperone oriented. I think it’s probably important to set a policy saying a chaperone must always be present for these kinds of examinations and list them, or one can be requested no matter what is going on in terms of the kind of exam being conducted.

There needs to be some statement saying that you have permission to either accept them or refuse them – or you don’t. Should they always be present, for example, with patients who are minors, adolescents or children? Does that extend that far out where a guardian, parent, or someone has to give permission?

In this area, I think we can all understand why chaperones have come to the fore, including allegations of misconduct and inappropriate touching, and considering comfort levels of patients to just put them more at ease. It’s obvious that we haven’t, as a nation or a medical profession, thought it through to the degree to which we have to.

I’m certainly not anti-chaperone, and I believe that if patients are more comfortable having one present, or a doctor is more comfortable having one present, or if we all agree that there are certain patients – kids – where certain types of examinations require or ought to expect the chaperone to be present, that’s wonderful.

We’ve got to lay out the rights of the doctors. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the institutions. We’ve got to lay out the rights of the patients. We should agree on who these people are. We should agree on how they’re trained.

We’ve got some work ahead of us if we’re going to have chaperones become a standard part of the medical examination.

Dr. Kaplan reported conflicts of interest with the Franklin Institute, Tengion, Biogen Idec, Johnson & Johnson, and PriCara.

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