Clinician Reviews

Nearly one in four children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for 5 years or more develop diabetic retinopathy, according to a new report.

The global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes is about 7%, which appears to increase with age.

“In our clinical practice, we have seen an increase in children presenting with type 2 diabetes over the past few years. These patients present with multiple simultaneous comorbidities and complications like hypertension, fatty liver, and other conditions,” senior author M. Constantine Samaan, MD, told this news organization.

“The exact scale of diabetes-related eye disease was not clear, and we decided to quantify it,” said Dr. Samaan, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University and pediatric endocrinologist at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont.

“What we found was that in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic retinopathy is present in 1 in 14 youth. The risk of retinopathy increased significantly 5 years after diagnosis to almost one in four,” he noted.

“While we acknowledged that the number of diabetic retinopathy cases was relatively small and there was heterogeneity in studies, we were surprised that retinopathy rates rose so fast in the first few years after diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Samaan indicated.

The findings signal that the increase in the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is emerging decades earlier among children compared with adults with type 2 diabetes, the authors wrote in their article published online in JAMA Network Open.

“While the guidelines for eye care in children with type 2 diabetes recommend screening at diagnosis and annually afterward, these recommendations are not followed in almost half of these patients,” Dr. Samaan said. “There is a need to ensure that patients get screened to try and prevent or delay retinopathy onset and progression.”
 

Analyzing prevalence rates

Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in patients with type 2 diabetes. Between 21% and 39% of adults have diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis, with rates subsequently increasing, the authors wrote.

Dr. Samaan and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes. They included studies that had a study population of at least 10 participants diagnosed at age 21 and younger, an observational study design, and prevalence data on diabetic retinopathy.

Among the 29 studies included, 6 were cross-sectional, 13 had a retrospective cohort design, and 10 had a prospective cohort design. Patients were diagnosed between age 6.5 and 21 years, and the diabetes duration ranged from 0 to 15 years after diagnosis.

The overall global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in 5,924 pediatric patients was 7.0%. Prevalence varied by study design, ranging from 1.1% in cross-sectional studies to 6.5% in prospective cohort studies and 11.3% in retrospective cohort studies.

In the nine studies that reported diabetic retinopathy classification based on criteria, the prevalence of minimal-to-moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy was 11.2%, the prevalence of severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.6%, the prevalence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.4%, and the prevalence of macular edema was 3.1%.

In the five studies that reported diabetic retinopathy diagnosis using fundoscopy, the prevalence was 0.5%. In the four studies that used 7-field stereoscopic fundus photography, the prevalence was 13.6%.

In the pooled analysis of 27 studies, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy was 1.8% less than 2.5 years after diabetes diagnosis but more than doubled to 5.1% in years 2.5 to 5 and jumped to 28.8% more than 5 years after diagnosis.
 

Differences by sex, ethnicity

“We were also surprised that there was very limited evidence to understand the sex and race differences in retinopathy risk,” said Dr. Samaan. “Further research is warranted, considering that more girls develop type 2 diabetes than boys, and the risk of type 2 diabetes is higher in some racial groups.”

In addition, older age, longer diabetes duration, and higher hypertension prevalence were associated with diabetic retinopathy prevalence. There were no associations with obesity prevalence or mean age at diabetes diagnosis. However, patients who developed diabetic retinopathy had a higher mean A1c level of 1.4% compared to those without retinopathy.

Dr. Samaan and colleagues are continuing to research the comorbidities and complications that children with type 2 diabetes face as well as mechanisms that drive diabetes outcomes among children and adolescents.

For now, the findings highlight the importance of retinopathy screening and personalized diabetes treatment to protect vision, Dr. Samaan reiterated.

No funding source for the study was reported. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Nearly one in four children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for 5 years or more develop diabetic retinopathy, according to a new report.

The global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes is about 7%, which appears to increase with age.

“In our clinical practice, we have seen an increase in children presenting with type 2 diabetes over the past few years. These patients present with multiple simultaneous comorbidities and complications like hypertension, fatty liver, and other conditions,” senior author M. Constantine Samaan, MD, told this news organization.

“The exact scale of diabetes-related eye disease was not clear, and we decided to quantify it,” said Dr. Samaan, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University and pediatric endocrinologist at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont.

“What we found was that in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic retinopathy is present in 1 in 14 youth. The risk of retinopathy increased significantly 5 years after diagnosis to almost one in four,” he noted.

“While we acknowledged that the number of diabetic retinopathy cases was relatively small and there was heterogeneity in studies, we were surprised that retinopathy rates rose so fast in the first few years after diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Samaan indicated.

The findings signal that the increase in the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is emerging decades earlier among children compared with adults with type 2 diabetes, the authors wrote in their article published online in JAMA Network Open.

“While the guidelines for eye care in children with type 2 diabetes recommend screening at diagnosis and annually afterward, these recommendations are not followed in almost half of these patients,” Dr. Samaan said. “There is a need to ensure that patients get screened to try and prevent or delay retinopathy onset and progression.”
 

Analyzing prevalence rates

Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in patients with type 2 diabetes. Between 21% and 39% of adults have diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis, with rates subsequently increasing, the authors wrote.

Dr. Samaan and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes. They included studies that had a study population of at least 10 participants diagnosed at age 21 and younger, an observational study design, and prevalence data on diabetic retinopathy.

Among the 29 studies included, 6 were cross-sectional, 13 had a retrospective cohort design, and 10 had a prospective cohort design. Patients were diagnosed between age 6.5 and 21 years, and the diabetes duration ranged from 0 to 15 years after diagnosis.

The overall global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in 5,924 pediatric patients was 7.0%. Prevalence varied by study design, ranging from 1.1% in cross-sectional studies to 6.5% in prospective cohort studies and 11.3% in retrospective cohort studies.

In the nine studies that reported diabetic retinopathy classification based on criteria, the prevalence of minimal-to-moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy was 11.2%, the prevalence of severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.6%, the prevalence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.4%, and the prevalence of macular edema was 3.1%.

In the five studies that reported diabetic retinopathy diagnosis using fundoscopy, the prevalence was 0.5%. In the four studies that used 7-field stereoscopic fundus photography, the prevalence was 13.6%.

In the pooled analysis of 27 studies, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy was 1.8% less than 2.5 years after diabetes diagnosis but more than doubled to 5.1% in years 2.5 to 5 and jumped to 28.8% more than 5 years after diagnosis.
 

Differences by sex, ethnicity

“We were also surprised that there was very limited evidence to understand the sex and race differences in retinopathy risk,” said Dr. Samaan. “Further research is warranted, considering that more girls develop type 2 diabetes than boys, and the risk of type 2 diabetes is higher in some racial groups.”

In addition, older age, longer diabetes duration, and higher hypertension prevalence were associated with diabetic retinopathy prevalence. There were no associations with obesity prevalence or mean age at diabetes diagnosis. However, patients who developed diabetic retinopathy had a higher mean A1c level of 1.4% compared to those without retinopathy.

Dr. Samaan and colleagues are continuing to research the comorbidities and complications that children with type 2 diabetes face as well as mechanisms that drive diabetes outcomes among children and adolescents.

For now, the findings highlight the importance of retinopathy screening and personalized diabetes treatment to protect vision, Dr. Samaan reiterated.

No funding source for the study was reported. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Nearly one in four children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for 5 years or more develop diabetic retinopathy, according to a new report.

The global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes is about 7%, which appears to increase with age.

“In our clinical practice, we have seen an increase in children presenting with type 2 diabetes over the past few years. These patients present with multiple simultaneous comorbidities and complications like hypertension, fatty liver, and other conditions,” senior author M. Constantine Samaan, MD, told this news organization.

“The exact scale of diabetes-related eye disease was not clear, and we decided to quantify it,” said Dr. Samaan, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University and pediatric endocrinologist at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont.

“What we found was that in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes, diabetic retinopathy is present in 1 in 14 youth. The risk of retinopathy increased significantly 5 years after diagnosis to almost one in four,” he noted.

“While we acknowledged that the number of diabetic retinopathy cases was relatively small and there was heterogeneity in studies, we were surprised that retinopathy rates rose so fast in the first few years after diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Samaan indicated.

The findings signal that the increase in the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is emerging decades earlier among children compared with adults with type 2 diabetes, the authors wrote in their article published online in JAMA Network Open.

“While the guidelines for eye care in children with type 2 diabetes recommend screening at diagnosis and annually afterward, these recommendations are not followed in almost half of these patients,” Dr. Samaan said. “There is a need to ensure that patients get screened to try and prevent or delay retinopathy onset and progression.”
 

Analyzing prevalence rates

Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in patients with type 2 diabetes. Between 21% and 39% of adults have diabetic retinopathy at diagnosis, with rates subsequently increasing, the authors wrote.

Dr. Samaan and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes. They included studies that had a study population of at least 10 participants diagnosed at age 21 and younger, an observational study design, and prevalence data on diabetic retinopathy.

Among the 29 studies included, 6 were cross-sectional, 13 had a retrospective cohort design, and 10 had a prospective cohort design. Patients were diagnosed between age 6.5 and 21 years, and the diabetes duration ranged from 0 to 15 years after diagnosis.

The overall global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in 5,924 pediatric patients was 7.0%. Prevalence varied by study design, ranging from 1.1% in cross-sectional studies to 6.5% in prospective cohort studies and 11.3% in retrospective cohort studies.

In the nine studies that reported diabetic retinopathy classification based on criteria, the prevalence of minimal-to-moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy was 11.2%, the prevalence of severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.6%, the prevalence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.4%, and the prevalence of macular edema was 3.1%.

In the five studies that reported diabetic retinopathy diagnosis using fundoscopy, the prevalence was 0.5%. In the four studies that used 7-field stereoscopic fundus photography, the prevalence was 13.6%.

In the pooled analysis of 27 studies, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy was 1.8% less than 2.5 years after diabetes diagnosis but more than doubled to 5.1% in years 2.5 to 5 and jumped to 28.8% more than 5 years after diagnosis.
 

Differences by sex, ethnicity

“We were also surprised that there was very limited evidence to understand the sex and race differences in retinopathy risk,” said Dr. Samaan. “Further research is warranted, considering that more girls develop type 2 diabetes than boys, and the risk of type 2 diabetes is higher in some racial groups.”

In addition, older age, longer diabetes duration, and higher hypertension prevalence were associated with diabetic retinopathy prevalence. There were no associations with obesity prevalence or mean age at diabetes diagnosis. However, patients who developed diabetic retinopathy had a higher mean A1c level of 1.4% compared to those without retinopathy.

Dr. Samaan and colleagues are continuing to research the comorbidities and complications that children with type 2 diabetes face as well as mechanisms that drive diabetes outcomes among children and adolescents.

For now, the findings highlight the importance of retinopathy screening and personalized diabetes treatment to protect vision, Dr. Samaan reiterated.

No funding source for the study was reported. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Social media outlets are full of stories about celebrities who have lost weight with the new generation of incretin medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.

Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?

Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.

Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
 

Medications effective but cost prohibitive?

Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.

Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.

Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.

Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.

Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
 

Stopping equals weight regain

Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.

The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.

There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.

These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.

A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.

Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.

Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.

However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.

People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.

Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.

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

Social media outlets are full of stories about celebrities who have lost weight with the new generation of incretin medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.

Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?

Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.

Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
 

Medications effective but cost prohibitive?

Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.

Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.

Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.

Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.

Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
 

Stopping equals weight regain

Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.

The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.

There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.

These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.

A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.

Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.

Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.

However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.

People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.

Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.

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

Social media outlets are full of stories about celebrities who have lost weight with the new generation of incretin medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.

Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?

Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.

Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
 

Medications effective but cost prohibitive?

Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.

Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.

Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.

Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.

Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
 

Stopping equals weight regain

Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.

The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.

There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.

These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.

A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.

Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.

Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.

However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.

People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.

Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.

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

New research shows that chemicals from car exhaust, wildfires, and cigarette smoke impair the skin’s ability to make healthy oil, making it more likely to get eczema.

The finding points scientists toward how to better treat the skin ailment. There are now more than three times as many eczema cases as there were in the 1970s, and it now affects as many as 20% of children and 10% of adults.

“I think these authors are spot-on in recognizing that the incidence of allergic conditions is increasing concurrently with how different pollutants are increasing in our environment,” said Denver-based pediatric allergist and immunologist Jessica Hui, MD, according to NBC News. “We’re finally understanding more about why people are getting eczema.”

Some people get eczema because of genetics, but the new research built on the previous understanding of how chemicals called diisocyanates can trigger the eczema symptoms of severe itching, skin redness, and oozing or painful rashes. An experiment on mice showed that exposure to a specific part of diisocyanates, called isocyanates, disrupted oil production that the skin needs to stay healthy.

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health “found that when bacteria that live on healthy skin are exposed to isocyanate, they must adapt to survive,” the agency summarized in a news release. “When they adapt, these bacteria shift their metabolism away from making the lipids, or oils, that skin needs to stay healthy. This finding suggests that eczema may be treatable by replacing the modified skin bacteria with healthy bacteria.”

The study was published in the journal Science Advances.

The chemicals also trigger a message to the brain that causes skin inflammation and itching, lead researcher Ian Myles, MD, told NBC News. Dr. Myles is also chief of the Epithelial Research Unit in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology.

“So much of this is out of our control. I mean, you can’t shut the highways down,” he said of the environmental sources.

Previous research that explored attempting to restore healthy skin bacteria called Roseomonas mucosa to treat eczema symptoms had mixed results. The NIH says it has made the bacteria available “for commercial, nontherapeutic development ... as a potentially beneficial probiotic.”

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

New research shows that chemicals from car exhaust, wildfires, and cigarette smoke impair the skin’s ability to make healthy oil, making it more likely to get eczema.

The finding points scientists toward how to better treat the skin ailment. There are now more than three times as many eczema cases as there were in the 1970s, and it now affects as many as 20% of children and 10% of adults.

“I think these authors are spot-on in recognizing that the incidence of allergic conditions is increasing concurrently with how different pollutants are increasing in our environment,” said Denver-based pediatric allergist and immunologist Jessica Hui, MD, according to NBC News. “We’re finally understanding more about why people are getting eczema.”

Some people get eczema because of genetics, but the new research built on the previous understanding of how chemicals called diisocyanates can trigger the eczema symptoms of severe itching, skin redness, and oozing or painful rashes. An experiment on mice showed that exposure to a specific part of diisocyanates, called isocyanates, disrupted oil production that the skin needs to stay healthy.

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health “found that when bacteria that live on healthy skin are exposed to isocyanate, they must adapt to survive,” the agency summarized in a news release. “When they adapt, these bacteria shift their metabolism away from making the lipids, or oils, that skin needs to stay healthy. This finding suggests that eczema may be treatable by replacing the modified skin bacteria with healthy bacteria.”

The study was published in the journal Science Advances.

The chemicals also trigger a message to the brain that causes skin inflammation and itching, lead researcher Ian Myles, MD, told NBC News. Dr. Myles is also chief of the Epithelial Research Unit in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology.

“So much of this is out of our control. I mean, you can’t shut the highways down,” he said of the environmental sources.

Previous research that explored attempting to restore healthy skin bacteria called Roseomonas mucosa to treat eczema symptoms had mixed results. The NIH says it has made the bacteria available “for commercial, nontherapeutic development ... as a potentially beneficial probiotic.”

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

New research shows that chemicals from car exhaust, wildfires, and cigarette smoke impair the skin’s ability to make healthy oil, making it more likely to get eczema.

The finding points scientists toward how to better treat the skin ailment. There are now more than three times as many eczema cases as there were in the 1970s, and it now affects as many as 20% of children and 10% of adults.

“I think these authors are spot-on in recognizing that the incidence of allergic conditions is increasing concurrently with how different pollutants are increasing in our environment,” said Denver-based pediatric allergist and immunologist Jessica Hui, MD, according to NBC News. “We’re finally understanding more about why people are getting eczema.”

Some people get eczema because of genetics, but the new research built on the previous understanding of how chemicals called diisocyanates can trigger the eczema symptoms of severe itching, skin redness, and oozing or painful rashes. An experiment on mice showed that exposure to a specific part of diisocyanates, called isocyanates, disrupted oil production that the skin needs to stay healthy.

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health “found that when bacteria that live on healthy skin are exposed to isocyanate, they must adapt to survive,” the agency summarized in a news release. “When they adapt, these bacteria shift their metabolism away from making the lipids, or oils, that skin needs to stay healthy. This finding suggests that eczema may be treatable by replacing the modified skin bacteria with healthy bacteria.”

The study was published in the journal Science Advances.

The chemicals also trigger a message to the brain that causes skin inflammation and itching, lead researcher Ian Myles, MD, told NBC News. Dr. Myles is also chief of the Epithelial Research Unit in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology.

“So much of this is out of our control. I mean, you can’t shut the highways down,” he said of the environmental sources.

Previous research that explored attempting to restore healthy skin bacteria called Roseomonas mucosa to treat eczema symptoms had mixed results. The NIH says it has made the bacteria available “for commercial, nontherapeutic development ... as a potentially beneficial probiotic.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.

However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.  

Rasi Bhadramani/iStock/Getty Images

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
 

A new pathway for heart transplantation

The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.

As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.  

However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death. 

Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed. 

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.

For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.

Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.

In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.

It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.  

Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.  

Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
 

The direct procurement approach

The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.

The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”

Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
 

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)  

The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).

Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.

“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”

Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.” 

The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.

He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts. 

DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.

The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
 

Ethical concerns about NRP

Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.

When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule. 

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.

“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
 

The argument for NRP

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.

“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.

“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”

Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.

“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”

On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”

He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.” 

On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”

But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”

Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD?  We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.

“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”

Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?

Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”

He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”

But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.

“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.

“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.  

“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
 

Cautious nod

In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.

The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”

The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”

However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.

“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.

“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”

Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
 

Variations in practice around the world 

This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.

In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t. 

David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.

“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.

Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.

“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.

Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.

“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”

Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants. 

“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”

He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”

Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.

“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said. 

“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”  

But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.  

“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.

“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”

Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”

A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.

In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.

Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.

However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.

But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”

The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.

If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
 

Definition of death  

The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.  

DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”

Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.

“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function. 

“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”

Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier. 

In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.

“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.” 

Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
 

Collaborative decision

Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.

Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”

Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”

He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.” 

Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”

He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.

“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”

These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.

Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”

If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”  

Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”

He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.

Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
 

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

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.

However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.  

Rasi Bhadramani/iStock/Getty Images

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
 

A new pathway for heart transplantation

The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.

As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.  

However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death. 

Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed. 

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.

For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.

Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.

In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.

It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.  

Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.  

Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
 

The direct procurement approach

The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.

The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”

Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
 

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)  

The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).

Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.

“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”

Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.” 

The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.

He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts. 

DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.

The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
 

Ethical concerns about NRP

Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.

When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule. 

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.

“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
 

The argument for NRP

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.

“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.

“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”

Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.

“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”

On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”

He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.” 

On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”

But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”

Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD?  We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.

“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”

Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?

Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”

He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”

But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.

“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.

“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.  

“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
 

Cautious nod

In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.

The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”

The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”

However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.

“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.

“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”

Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
 

Variations in practice around the world 

This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.

In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t. 

David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.

“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.

Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.

“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.

Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.

“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”

Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants. 

“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”

He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”

Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.

“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said. 

“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”  

But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.  

“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.

“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”

Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”

A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.

In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.

Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.

However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.

But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”

The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.

If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
 

Definition of death  

The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.  

DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”

Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.

“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function. 

“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”

Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier. 

In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.

“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.” 

Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
 

Collaborative decision

Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.

Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”

Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”

He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.” 

Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”

He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.

“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”

These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.

Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”

If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”  

Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”

He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.

Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
 

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

The relatively recent innovation of heart transplantation after circulatory death of the donor is increasing the number of donor hearts available and leading to many more lives on the heart transplant waiting list being saved. Experts agree it’s a major and very welcome advance in medicine.

However, some of the processes involved in one approach to donation after circulatory death has raised ethical concerns and questions about whether they violate the “dead donor rule” – a principle that requires patients be declared dead before removal of life-sustaining organs for transplant.  

Rasi Bhadramani/iStock/Getty Images

Experts in the fields of transplantation and medical ethics have yet to reach consensus, causing problems for the transplant community, who worry that this could cause a loss of confidence in the entire transplant process.
 

A new pathway for heart transplantation

The traditional approach to transplantation is to retrieve organs from a donor who has been declared brain dead, known as “donation after brain death (DBD).” These patients have usually suffered a catastrophic brain injury but survived to get to intensive care.

As the brain swells because of injury, it becomes evident that all brain function is lost, and the patient is declared brain dead. However, breathing is maintained by the ventilator and the heart is still beating. Because the organs are being oxygenated, there is no immediate rush to retrieve the organs and the heart can be evaluated for its suitability for transplant in a calm and methodical way before it is removed.  

However, there is a massive shortage of organs, especially hearts, partially because of the limited number of donors who are declared brain dead in that setting.

In recent years, another pathway for organ transplantation has become available: “donation after circulatory death (DCD).” These patients also have suffered a catastrophic brain injury considered to be nonsurvivable, but unlike the DBD situation, the brain still has some function, so the patient does not meet the criteria for brain death. 

Still, because the patient is considered to have no chance of a meaningful recovery, the family often recognizes the futility of treatment and agrees to the withdrawal of life support. When this happens, the heart normally stops beating after a period of time. There is then a “stand-off time” – normally 5 minutes – after which death is declared and the organs can be removed. 

The difficulty with this approach, however, is that because the heart has been stopped, it has been deprived of oxygen, potentially causing injury. While DCD has been practiced for several years to retrieve organs such as the kidney, liver, lungs, and pancreas, the heart is more difficult as it is more susceptible to oxygen deprivation. And for the heart to be assessed for transplant suitability, it should ideally be beating, so it has to be reperfused and restarted quickly after death has been declared.

For many years it was thought the oxygen deprivation that occurs after circulatory death would be too much to provide a functional organ. But researchers in the United Kingdom and Australia developed techniques to overcome this problem, and early DCD heart transplants took place in 2014 in Australia, and in 2015 in the United Kingdom.

Heart transplantation after circulatory death has now become a routine part of the transplant program in many countries, including the United States, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Austria.

In the United States, 348 DCD heart transplants were performed in 2022, with numbers expected to reach 700 to 800 this year as more centers come online.

It is expected that most countries with heart transplant programs will follow suit and the number of donor hearts will increase by up to 30% worldwide because of DCD.  

Currently, there are about 8,000 heart transplants worldwide each year and with DCD this could rise to about 10,000, potentially an extra 2,000 lives saved each year, experts estimate.  

Two different approaches to DCD heart transplantation have been developed.
 

The direct procurement approach

The Australian group, based at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, developed a technique referred to as “direct procurement”: after the standoff period and declaration of circulatory death, the chest is opened, and the heart is removed. New technology, the Organ Care System (OCS) heart box (Transmedics), is then used to reperfuse and restart the heart outside the body so its suitability for transplant can be assessed.

The heart is kept perfused and beating in the OCS box while it is being transported to the recipient. This has enabled longer transit times than the traditional way of transporting the nonbeating heart on ice.

Peter MacDonald, MD, PhD, from the St Vincent’s group that developed this approach, said, “Most people thought a heart from a DCD donor would not survive transport – that the injury to the heart from the combination of life support withdrawal, stand-off time, and cold storage would be too much. But we modeled the process in the lab and were able to show that we were able to get the heart beating again after withdrawal of life support.”

Dr. McDonald noted that “the recipient of their first human DCD heart transplant using this machine in 2014 is still alive and well.” The Australian group has now done 85 of these DCD heart transplants, and they have increased the number of heart transplant procedures at St. Vincent’s Hospital by 25%.
 

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP)  

The U.K. group, based at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, England, developed a different approach to DCD: After the standoff period and the declaration of circulatory death, the donor is connected to a heart/lung machine using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) so that the heart is perfused and starts beating again inside the body. This approach is known as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP).

Marius Berman, MD, surgical lead for Transplantation and Mechanical Circulatory Support at Papworth, explained that the NRP approach allows the heart to be perfused and restarted faster than direct procurement, resulting in a shorter ischemic time. The heart can be evaluated thoroughly for suitability for transplantation in situ before committing to transplantation, and because the heart is less damaged, it can be transported on ice without use of the OCS box.

“DCD is more complicated than DBD, because the heart has stopped and has to be restarted. Retrieval teams have to be very experienced,” Dr. Berman noted. “This is more of an issue for the direct procurement approach, where the chest has to be opened and the heart retrieved as fast as possible. It is a rush. The longer time without the heart being perfused correlates to an increased incidence of primary graft dysfunction. With NRP, we can get the heart started again more quickly, which is crucial.”

Stephen Large, MBBS, another cardiothoracic surgeon with the Papworth team, added that they have reduced ischemic time to about 15 minutes. “That’s considerably shorter than reperfusing the heart outside the body,” he said. “This results in a healthier organ for the recipient.” 

The NRP approach is also less expensive than direct procurement as one OCS box costs about $75,000.

He pointed out that the NRP approach can also be used for heart transplants in children and even small babies, while currently the direct procurement technique is not typically suitable for children because the OCS box was not designed for small hearts. 

DCD, using either technique, has increased the heart transplant rate by 40% at Papworth, and is being used at all seven transplant centers in the United Kingdom, “a world first,” noted Dr. Large.

The Papworth team recently published its 5-year experience with 25 NRP transplants and 85 direct procurement transplants. Survival in recipients was no different, although there was some suggestion that the NRP hearts may have been in slightly better condition, possibly being more resistant to immunological rejection.
 

Ethical concerns about NRP

Restarting the circulation during the NRP process has raised ethical concerns.

When the NRP technique was first used in the United States, these ethical questions were raised by several groups, including the American College of Physicians (ACP).

Harry Peled, MD, Providence St. Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, Calif., coauthor of a recent Viewpoint on the issue, is board-certified in both cardiology and critical care, and said he is a supporter of DCD using direct procurement, but he does not believe that NRP is ethical at present. He is not part of the ACP, but said his views align with those of the organization.

There are two ethical problems with NRP, he said. The first is whether by restarting the circulation, the NRP process violates the U.S. definition of death, and retrieval of organs would therefore violate the dead donor rule. 

“American law states that death is the irreversible cessation of brain function or of circulatory function. But with NRP, the circulation is artificially restored, so the cessation of circulatory function is not irreversible,” Dr. Peled pointed out.

“I have no problem with DCD using direct procurement as we are not restarting the circulation. But NRP is restarting the circulation and that is a problem for me,” Dr. Peled said. “I would argue that by performing NRP, we are resuscitating the patient.”

The second ethical problem with NRP is concern about whether, during the process, there would be any circulation to the brain, and if so, would this be enough to restore some brain function? Before NRP is started, the main arch vessel arteries to the head are clamped to prevent flow to the brain, but there are worries that some blood flow may still be possible through small collateral vessels.

“We have established that these patients do not have enough brain function for a meaningful life, which is why a decision has been made to remove life support, but they have not been declared brain dead,” Dr. Peled said.

With direct procurement, the circulation is not restarted so there is no chance that any brain function will be restored, he said. “But with NRP, because the arch vessels have to be clamped to prevent brain circulation, that is admitting there is concern that brain function may be restored if circulation to the brain is reestablished, and brain function is compatible with life. As we do not know whether there is any meaningful circulation to the brain via the small collaterals, there is, in effect, a risk of bringing the patient back to life.”

The other major concern for some is whether even a very small amount of circulation to the brain would be enough to support consciousness, and “we don’t know that for certain,” Dr. Peled said.
 

The argument for NRP

Nader Moazami, MD, professor of cardiovascular surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, is one of the more vocal proponents of NRP for DCD heart transplantation in the United States, and has coauthored responses to these ethical concerns.

“People are confusing many issues to produce an argument against NRP,” he said.

“Our position is that death has already been declared based on the lack of circulatory function for over 5 minutes and this has been with the full agreement of the family, knowing that the patient has no chance of a meaningful life. No one is thinking of trying to resuscitate the patient. It has already been established that any future efforts to resuscitate are futile. In this case, we are not resuscitating the patient by restarting the circulation. It is just regional perfusion of the organs.”

Dr. Moazami pointed out this concept was accepted for the practice of abdominal DCD when it first started in the United States in the 1990s where cold perfusion was used to preserve the abdominal organs before they were retrieved from the body.

“The new approach of using NRP is similar except that it involves circulating warm blood, which will preserve organs better and result in higher quality organs for the recipient.”

On the issue of concern about possible circulation to the brain, Dr. Moazami said: “The ethical critics of NRP are questioning whether the brain may not be dead. We are arguing that the patient has already been declared dead as they have had a circulatory death. You cannot die twice.”

He maintained that the clamping of the arch vessels to the head will ensure that when the circulation is restarted “the natural process of circulatory death leading to brain death will continue to progress.” 

On the concerns about possible collateral flow to the brain, Dr. Moazami said there is no evidence that this occurs. “Prominent neurologists have said it is impossible for collaterals to provide any meaningful blood flow to the brain in this situation. And even if there is small amount of blood flow to the brain, this would be insufficient to maintain any meaningful brain function.”

But Dr. Peled argues that this has not been proved. “Even though we don’t think there is enough circulation to the brain for any function with NRP, we don’t know that with 100% certainty,” he said. “In my view, if there is a possibility of even the smallest amount of brain flow, we are going against the dead donor rule. We are rewriting the rules of death.”

Dr. Moazami countered: “Nothing in life is 100%, particularly in medicine. With that argument can you also prove with 100% certainty to me that there is absolutely no brain function with regular direct procurement DCD?  We know that brain death has started, but the question is: Has it been completed? We don’t know the answer to this question with 100% certainty, but that is the case for regular direct procurement DCD as well, and that has been accepted by almost everyone.

“The whole issue revolves around when are we comfortable that death has occurred,” he said. “Those against NRP are concerned that organs are being taken before the patient is dead. But the key point is that the patient has already been declared dead.”

Since there is some concern over the ethics of NRP, why not just stick to DCD with direct procurement?

Dr. Moazami argued that NRP results in healthier organs. “NRP allows more successful heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants. It preserves all the organs better,” he said. “This will have a big impact on recipients – they would obviously much prefer a healthier organ. In addition, the process is easier and cheaper, so more centers will be able to do it, therefore more transplants will get done and more lives will be saved if NRP is used.”

He added: “I am a physician taking care of sick patients. I believe I have to respect the wishes of the donor and the donor family; make sure I’m not doing any harm to the donor; and ensure the best quality possible of the organ I am retrieving to best serve the recipient. I am happy I am doing this by using NRP for DCD heart transplantation.”

But Dr. Peled argued that while NRP may have some possible advantages over direct procurement, that does not justify allowing a process to go ahead that is unethical.

“The fact that NRP may result in some benefits doesn’t justify violating the dead donor rule or the possibility, however small, of causing pain to the donor. If it’s unethical, it’s unethical. Full stop,” he said.

“I feel that NRP is not respecting the rights of our patients and that the process does not have adequate transparency. We took it to our local ethics committee, and they decided not to approve NRP in our health care system. I agree with this decision,” Dr. Peled said.  

“The trouble is different experts and different countries are not in agreement about this,” he added. “Reasonable, well-informed people are in disagreement. I do not believe we can have a standard of care where there is not consensus.”
 

Cautious nod

In a 2022 consensus statement, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) gave a cautious nod toward DCD and NRP, dependent on local recommendations.

The ISHLT conclusion reads: “With appropriate consideration of the ethical principles involved in organ donation, DCD can be undertaken in a morally permissible manner. In all cases, the introduction of DCD programs should be in accordance with local legal regulations. Countries lacking a DCD pathway should be encouraged to develop national ethical, professional, and legal frameworks to address both public and professional concerns.”

The author of a recent editorial on the subject, Ulrich P. Jorde, MD, head of the heart transplant program at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said, “DCD is a great step forward. People regularly die on the heart transplant waiting list. DCD will increase the supply of donor hearts by 20% to 30%.”

However, he noted that while most societies have agreed on a protocol for organ donation based on brain death, the situation is more complicated with circulatory death.

“Different countries have different definitions of circulatory death. How long do we have to wait after the heart has stopped beating before the patient is declared dead? Most countries have agreed on 5 minutes, but other countries have imposed different periods and as such, different definitions of death.

“The ISHLT statement says that restarting the circulation is acceptable if death has been certified according to prevailing law and surgical interventions are undertaken to preclude any restoration of cerebral circulation. But our problem is that different regional societies have different definitions of circulatory, death which makes the situation confusing.”

Dr. Jorde added: “We also have to weigh the wishes of the donor and their family. If family, advocating what are presumed to be the donor’s wishes, have decided that DCD would be acceptable and they understand the concept and wish to donate the organs after circulatory death, this should be strongly considered under the concept of self-determination, a basic human right.”
 

Variations in practice around the world 

This ethical debate has led to large variations in practice around the world, with some countries, such as Spain, allowing both methods of DCD, while Australia allows direct procurement but not NRP, and Germany currently does not allow DCD at all.

In the United States, things are even more complicated, with some states allowing NRP while others don’t. Even within states, some hospitals and transplant organizations allow NRP, and others don’t. 

David A. D’Alessandro, MD, cardiac surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, uses only the direct procurement approach as his region does not allow NRP.

“The direct procurement approach is not controversial and to me that’s a big advantage. I believe we need to agree on the ethics first, and then get into a debate about which technique is better,” he told this news organization.

Dr. D’Alessandro and his group recently published the results of their study, with direct procurement DCD heart transplantation showing similar short-term clinical outcomes to DBD.

“We are only doing direct procurement and we are seeing good results that appear to be comparable to DBD. That is good enough for me,” he said.

Dr. D’Alessandro estimates that in the United States both types of DCD procedures are currently being done about equally.

“Anything we can do to increase the amount of hearts available for transplantation is a big deal,” he said. “At the moment, only the very sickest patients get a heart transplant, and many patients die on the transplant waiting list. Very sadly, many young people die every year from a circulatory death after having life support withdrawn. Before DCD, these beautiful functional organs were not able to be used. Now we have a way of saving lives with these organs.”

Dr. D’Alessandro noted that more and more centers in the United States are starting to perform DCD heart transplants. 

“Not every transplant center may join in as the DCD procedures are very resource-intensive and time-consuming. For low-volume transplant centers, it may not be worth the expense and anguish to do DCD heart transplants. But bigger centers will need to engage in DCD to remain competitive. My guess is that 50%-70% of U.S. transplant centers will do DCD in future.”

He said he thinks it is a “medical shortcoming” that agreement cannot be reached on the ethics of NRP. “In an ideal world everyone would be on the same page. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that some people think it’s okay and some people don’t.”

Adam DeVore, MD, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., the first U.S. center to perform an adult DCD heart transplant, reported that his institution uses both methods, with the choice sometimes depending on how far the heart must travel.

“If the recipient is near, NRP may be chosen as the heart is transported on ice, but if it needs to go further away we are more likely to choose direct procurement and use of the OCS box,” he said. 

“I am really proud of what we’ve been able to do, helping to introduce DCD in the U.S.,” Dr. DeVore said. “This is having a massive benefit in increasing the number of hearts for donation with great outcomes.”  

But he acknowledged that the whole concept of DCD is somewhat controversial.  

“The idea of brain death really came about for the purpose of heart donation. The two things are very intricately tied. Trying to do heart donation without brain death having been declared is foreign to people. Also, in DCD there is the issue of [this]: When life support is removed, how long do we wait before death can be declared? That could be in conflict with how long the organ needs to remain viable. We are going through the process now of looking at these questions. There is a lot of variation in the U.S. about the withdrawal of care and the declaration of death, which is not completely standardized.

“But the concept of circulatory death itself is accepted after the withdrawal of life support. I think it’s the rush to take the organs out that makes it more difficult.”

Dr. DeVore said the field is moving forward now. “As the process has become more common, people have become more comfortable, probably because of the big difference it will make to saving lives. But we do need to try and standardize best practices.”

A recent Canadian review of the ethics of DCD concluded that the direct procurement approach would be in alignment with current medical guidelines, but that further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process.

In the United Kingdom, the definition of death is brain-based, and brain death is defined on a neurological basis.

Dr. Stephen Large from Papworth explained that this recognizes the presence of brain-stem death through brain stem reflex testing after the withdrawal of life support, cardiorespiratory arrest and 5 further minutes of ischemia. As long as NRP does not restore intracranial (brainstem) perfusion after death has been confirmed, then it is consistent with laws for death determination and therefore both direct procurement and NRP are permissible.

However, the question over possible collateral flow to the brain has led the United Kingdom to pause the NRP technique as routine practice while this is investigated further. So, at the present time, the vast majority of DCD heart transplants are being conducted using the direct procurement approach.

But the United Kingdom is facing the bigger challenge: national funding that will soon end. “The DCD program in the U.K. has been extremely successful, increasing heart transplant rates by up to 28%,” Dr. Berman said. “Everybody wants it to continue. But at present the DCD program only has national funding in the U.K. until March 2023. We don’t know what will happen after that.”

The current model in the United Kingdom consists of three specialized DCD heart retrieval teams, a national protocol of direct organ procurement and delivery of DCD hearts to all seven transplant programs, both adult and pediatric.

If the national funding is not extended, “we will go back to individual hospitals trying to fund their own programs. That will be a serious threat to the program and could result in a large reduction in heart transplants,” said Dr. Berman.
 

Definition of death  

The crux of the issue with regard to NRP seems to be variations in how death is defined and the interpretation of those definitions.  

DCD donors will have had many tests indicating severe brain damage, a neurologist will have declared the prognosis is futile, and relatives will have agreed to withdraw life support, Dr. Jorde said. “The heart stops beating, and the stand-off time means that blood flow to the brain ceases completely for at least 5 minutes before circulatory death is declared. This is enough on its own to stop brain function.”

Dr. Large made the point that by the time the circulation is reestablished with NRP, more time has elapsed, and the brain will have been without perfusion for much longer than 5 minutes, so it would be “physiologically almost impossible” for there to be any blood flow to the brain.

“Because these brains are already very damaged before life support was removed, the intracranial pressure is high, which will further discourage blood flow to the brain,” he said. Then the donor goes through a period of anoxic heart arrest, up to 16 minutes at a minimum of no blood supply, enough on its own to stop meaningful brain function. 

“It’s asking an awful lot to believe that there might be any brain function left,” he said. “And if, on reestablishing the circulation with NRP, there is any blood in the collaterals, the pressure of such flow is so low it won’t enter the brain.”

Dr. Large also pointed out that the fact that the United Kingdom requires a neurologic definition for brain-stem death makes the process easier. 

In Australia, St. Vincent’s cardiologist Dr. MacDonald noted that death is defined as the irreversible cessation of circulation, so the NRP procedure is not allowed.

“With NRP, there is an ethical dilemma over whether the patient has legally died or not. Different countries have different ways of defining death. Perhaps society will have to review of the definition of death,” he suggested. Death is a process, “but for organ donation, we have to choose a moment in time of that process that satisfies everyone – when there is no prospect of recovery of the donor but the organs can still be utilized without harming the donor.” 

Dr. MacDonald said the field is in transition. “I don’t want to argue that one technique is better than the other; I think it’s good to have access to both techniques. Anything that will increase the number of transplants we can do is a good thing.”
 

Collaborative decision

Everyone seems to agree that there should be an effort to try to define death in a uniform way worldwide, and that international, national and local regulations are aligned with each other.

Dr. Jorde said: “It is of critical importance that local guidelines are streamlined, firstly in any one given country and then globally, and these things must be discussed transparently within society with all stakeholders – doctors, patients, citizens.”

Dr. Peled, from Providence St. Jude in California, concurred: “There is the possibility that we could change the definition of death, but that cannot be a decision based solely on transplant organizations. It has to be a collaborative decision with a large input from groups who do not have an interest in the procurement of organs.”

He added: “The dialogue so far has been civil, and everybody is trying to do the right thing. My hope is that as a civilized society we will figure out a way forward. At present, there is significant controversy about NRP, and families need to know that. My main concern is that if there is any lack of transparency in getting informed consent, then this risks people losing trust in the donation system.” 

Dr. Moazami, from NYU Langone, said the controversy has cast a cloud over the practice of NRP throughout the world. “We need to get it sorted out.”

He said he believes the way forward is to settle the question of whether there is any meaningful blood flow to the brain with the NRP technique.

“This is where the research has to focus. I believe this concern is hypothetical, but I am happy to do the studies to confirm that. Then, the issue should come to a rest. I think that is the right way forward – to do the studies rather than enforcing a moratorium on the practice because of a hypothetical concern.”

These studies on blood flow to the brain are now getting started in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.K. study is being run by Antonio Rubino, MD, consultant in cardiothoracic anesthesia and intensive care at Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation and clinical lead, organ donation. Dr. Rubino explained that the study will assess cerebral blood flow using CT angiography of the brain. “We hypothesize that this will provide evidence to indicate that brain blood flow is not present during NRP and promote trust in the use of NRP in routine practice,” he said.

Dr. Large said: “Rather than having these tortured arguments, we will do the measurements. For the sake of society in this situation, I think it’s good to stop and take a breath. We must measure this, and we are doing just that.”

If there is any blood flow at all, Dr. Large said they will then have to seek expert guidance. “Say we find there is 50 mL of blood flow and normal blood flow is 1,500 mL/min. We will need expert guidance on whether it is remotely possible to be sentient on that. I would say it would be extraordinarily unlikely.”  

Dr. Berman summarized the situation: “DCD is increasing the availability of hearts for transplant. This is saving lives, reducing the number of patients on the waiting list, and reducing hospital stays for patients unable to leave the hospital without a transplant. It is definitely here to stay. It is crucial that it gets funded properly, and it is also crucial that we resolve the NRP ethical issues as soon as possible.”

He is hopeful that some of these issues will be resolved this year.

Dr. MacDonald reported he has received “in-kind” support from Transmedics through provision of research modules for preclinical research studies. Dr. D’Alessandro reported he is on the speakers bureau for Abiomed, not relevant to this article. No other relevant disclosures were reported.
 

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

Most older adults with low-risk surveillance colonoscopy findings and/or limited life expectancy are advised to undergo a repeat procedure in the future, according to a new study.

Among nearly 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) on surveillance colonoscopy was low. Yet, among patients for whom any follow-up recommendation – either for or against colonoscopy – was available, the vast majority (87%) were advised to return for the procedure in the future, even if their life expectancy was limited or there were no significant findings on their surveillance colonoscopy.

“These findings suggest that recommending against future surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with low-risk colonoscopy findings and/or limited life expectancy should be considered more frequently than is currently practiced,” say Audrey Calderwood, MD, with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

Because of the lack of clear guidance about when to stop recommending colonoscopies to older patients, it is not surprising that physicians recommend surveillance even for patients with low life expectancy, Ziad Gellad, MD, with Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“As someone who performs these procedures, I can tell you that it is not easy to tell patients that they are too old to get preventive care, especially patients in whom your only interaction is the procedure itself,” said Dr. Gellad, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Key findings

For older adults, surveillance after prior findings of colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy. Data suggest that an estimated 5.6 million adults older than 75 will undergo follow-up colonoscopy annually by 2024.

For older adults with polyps, current guidelines recommend individualized decision-making about surveillance colonoscopy. That includes weighing the potential benefits (identifying and removing meaningful lesions to prevent CRC) against the burdens and potential harms (such as bleeding or perforation).

While most colon polyps are not harmful, a subset of polyps, if allowed to grow, can develop into cancer over 10-15 years. This long biological time line highlights the importance of considering life expectancy in deciding for whom surveillance colonoscopy should be recommended, Dr. Calderwood and colleagues note.

Using data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which is linked with the Medicare claims database, they evaluated surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up advice according to severity of findings and patients’ estimated life expectancy for 9,831 adults (mean age, 73; 54% men).

Life expectancy was 10+ years for 57.5% of patients, 5 to less than 10 years for 35%, and less than 5 years for 7.5%.

Overall, 791 patients (8%) were found to have advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) on surveillance colonoscopy.

Recommendations to stop or continue future colonoscopy were available for 5,281 patients (53.7%). Among them, 4,588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy, even when there were no significant colonoscopy findings or the patient’s life expectancy was limited.

Compared with life expectancy of less than 5 years, longer life expectancy was associated with advice to return for future colonoscopy regardless of clinical findings, with adjusted odds ratios of 21.5 and 2.7, respectively, for life expectancy of 10 or more years and of 5 to less than 10 years.

Among patients with no significant findings, 95% of those with life expectancy of 10 or more years were recommended to undergo repeat colonoscopy down the road, compared with 58% of those with estimated life expectancy of less than 5 years.

Among patients expected to live 5 to less than 10 years, future repeat colonoscopy was recommended for 75% who had no significant findings, 82% with one or two small polyps, and 88% with multiple polyps, advanced polyps, or CRC.

The recommended time to repeat colonoscopy was greater than life expectancy for 6.6% of patients with less than 5 years of life expectancy and 6% with 5 to less than 10 years of life expectancy.
 

Nuanced decisions

The findings “may help refine decision-making” about the potential benefits and harms of pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy for older adults who have a history of polyps, Dr. Calderwood and colleagues say.

The risk for a colonoscopy complication has been estimated at 26 per 1,000 people, they note. That’s nearly 10 times greater than the potential benefits seen in their study (that is, identification of CRC in 23 of 9,831 people, or about 2.3 per 1,000).

In the study cohort, 10% of patients had comorbid conditions that have been associated with a higher risk for colonoscopy complications. Those with life expectancy of less than 5 years had higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation, which also is associated with increased risk for colonoscopy complications, including perforation.

Dr. Calderwood and colleagues suggest that clinicians use evidence regarding life expectancy and neoplasia progression to modify their recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy for older adults in the following ways:

• If life expectancy is less than 5 years, recommend against surveillance.
• If life expectancy is 5 to less than 10 years and the patient has only low-risk polyps, recommend against surveillance.
• If the patient is healthy with a life expectancy of 10+ years and has recently been found to have advanced polyps, recommend future surveillance colonoscopy, with a caveat that the ultimate decision is dependent on health and priorities at the time the colonoscopy is due to be performed.
• If future health is unknown or unclear, avoid giving definitive recommendations for future surveillance to allow the flexibility of deciding on the basis of risk and benefit when the time comes.

In comments to this news organization, Dr. Gellad noted that an assessment of patient life expectancy “is not readily accessible at the point of care. These are nuanced decisions that require shared decision-making. Sometimes that is best handled outside the procedure setting.”

Support for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gellad is a consultant for Merck and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.

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

Most older adults with low-risk surveillance colonoscopy findings and/or limited life expectancy are advised to undergo a repeat procedure in the future, according to a new study.

Among nearly 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) on surveillance colonoscopy was low. Yet, among patients for whom any follow-up recommendation – either for or against colonoscopy – was available, the vast majority (87%) were advised to return for the procedure in the future, even if their life expectancy was limited or there were no significant findings on their surveillance colonoscopy.

“These findings suggest that recommending against future surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with low-risk colonoscopy findings and/or limited life expectancy should be considered more frequently than is currently practiced,” say Audrey Calderwood, MD, with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

Because of the lack of clear guidance about when to stop recommending colonoscopies to older patients, it is not surprising that physicians recommend surveillance even for patients with low life expectancy, Ziad Gellad, MD, with Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“As someone who performs these procedures, I can tell you that it is not easy to tell patients that they are too old to get preventive care, especially patients in whom your only interaction is the procedure itself,” said Dr. Gellad, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Key findings

For older adults, surveillance after prior findings of colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy. Data suggest that an estimated 5.6 million adults older than 75 will undergo follow-up colonoscopy annually by 2024.

For older adults with polyps, current guidelines recommend individualized decision-making about surveillance colonoscopy. That includes weighing the potential benefits (identifying and removing meaningful lesions to prevent CRC) against the burdens and potential harms (such as bleeding or perforation).

While most colon polyps are not harmful, a subset of polyps, if allowed to grow, can develop into cancer over 10-15 years. This long biological time line highlights the importance of considering life expectancy in deciding for whom surveillance colonoscopy should be recommended, Dr. Calderwood and colleagues note.

Using data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which is linked with the Medicare claims database, they evaluated surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up advice according to severity of findings and patients’ estimated life expectancy for 9,831 adults (mean age, 73; 54% men).

Life expectancy was 10+ years for 57.5% of patients, 5 to less than 10 years for 35%, and less than 5 years for 7.5%.

Overall, 791 patients (8%) were found to have advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) on surveillance colonoscopy.

Recommendations to stop or continue future colonoscopy were available for 5,281 patients (53.7%). Among them, 4,588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy, even when there were no significant colonoscopy findings or the patient’s life expectancy was limited.

Compared with life expectancy of less than 5 years, longer life expectancy was associated with advice to return for future colonoscopy regardless of clinical findings, with adjusted odds ratios of 21.5 and 2.7, respectively, for life expectancy of 10 or more years and of 5 to less than 10 years.

Among patients with no significant findings, 95% of those with life expectancy of 10 or more years were recommended to undergo repeat colonoscopy down the road, compared with 58% of those with estimated life expectancy of less than 5 years.

Among patients expected to live 5 to less than 10 years, future repeat colonoscopy was recommended for 75% who had no significant findings, 82% with one or two small polyps, and 88% with multiple polyps, advanced polyps, or CRC.

The recommended time to repeat colonoscopy was greater than life expectancy for 6.6% of patients with less than 5 years of life expectancy and 6% with 5 to less than 10 years of life expectancy.
 

Nuanced decisions

The findings “may help refine decision-making” about the potential benefits and harms of pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy for older adults who have a history of polyps, Dr. Calderwood and colleagues say.

The risk for a colonoscopy complication has been estimated at 26 per 1,000 people, they note. That’s nearly 10 times greater than the potential benefits seen in their study (that is, identification of CRC in 23 of 9,831 people, or about 2.3 per 1,000).

In the study cohort, 10% of patients had comorbid conditions that have been associated with a higher risk for colonoscopy complications. Those with life expectancy of less than 5 years had higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation, which also is associated with increased risk for colonoscopy complications, including perforation.

Dr. Calderwood and colleagues suggest that clinicians use evidence regarding life expectancy and neoplasia progression to modify their recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy for older adults in the following ways:

• If life expectancy is less than 5 years, recommend against surveillance.
• If life expectancy is 5 to less than 10 years and the patient has only low-risk polyps, recommend against surveillance.
• If the patient is healthy with a life expectancy of 10+ years and has recently been found to have advanced polyps, recommend future surveillance colonoscopy, with a caveat that the ultimate decision is dependent on health and priorities at the time the colonoscopy is due to be performed.
• If future health is unknown or unclear, avoid giving definitive recommendations for future surveillance to allow the flexibility of deciding on the basis of risk and benefit when the time comes.

In comments to this news organization, Dr. Gellad noted that an assessment of patient life expectancy “is not readily accessible at the point of care. These are nuanced decisions that require shared decision-making. Sometimes that is best handled outside the procedure setting.”

Support for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gellad is a consultant for Merck and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.

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

Most older adults with low-risk surveillance colonoscopy findings and/or limited life expectancy are advised to undergo a repeat procedure in the future, according to a new study.

Among nearly 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) on surveillance colonoscopy was low. Yet, among patients for whom any follow-up recommendation – either for or against colonoscopy – was available, the vast majority (87%) were advised to return for the procedure in the future, even if their life expectancy was limited or there were no significant findings on their surveillance colonoscopy.

“These findings suggest that recommending against future surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with low-risk colonoscopy findings and/or limited life expectancy should be considered more frequently than is currently practiced,” say Audrey Calderwood, MD, with Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues.

Because of the lack of clear guidance about when to stop recommending colonoscopies to older patients, it is not surprising that physicians recommend surveillance even for patients with low life expectancy, Ziad Gellad, MD, with Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“As someone who performs these procedures, I can tell you that it is not easy to tell patients that they are too old to get preventive care, especially patients in whom your only interaction is the procedure itself,” said Dr. Gellad, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Key findings

For older adults, surveillance after prior findings of colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy. Data suggest that an estimated 5.6 million adults older than 75 will undergo follow-up colonoscopy annually by 2024.

For older adults with polyps, current guidelines recommend individualized decision-making about surveillance colonoscopy. That includes weighing the potential benefits (identifying and removing meaningful lesions to prevent CRC) against the burdens and potential harms (such as bleeding or perforation).

While most colon polyps are not harmful, a subset of polyps, if allowed to grow, can develop into cancer over 10-15 years. This long biological time line highlights the importance of considering life expectancy in deciding for whom surveillance colonoscopy should be recommended, Dr. Calderwood and colleagues note.

Using data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which is linked with the Medicare claims database, they evaluated surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up advice according to severity of findings and patients’ estimated life expectancy for 9,831 adults (mean age, 73; 54% men).

Life expectancy was 10+ years for 57.5% of patients, 5 to less than 10 years for 35%, and less than 5 years for 7.5%.

Overall, 791 patients (8%) were found to have advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) on surveillance colonoscopy.

Recommendations to stop or continue future colonoscopy were available for 5,281 patients (53.7%). Among them, 4,588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy, even when there were no significant colonoscopy findings or the patient’s life expectancy was limited.

Compared with life expectancy of less than 5 years, longer life expectancy was associated with advice to return for future colonoscopy regardless of clinical findings, with adjusted odds ratios of 21.5 and 2.7, respectively, for life expectancy of 10 or more years and of 5 to less than 10 years.

Among patients with no significant findings, 95% of those with life expectancy of 10 or more years were recommended to undergo repeat colonoscopy down the road, compared with 58% of those with estimated life expectancy of less than 5 years.

Among patients expected to live 5 to less than 10 years, future repeat colonoscopy was recommended for 75% who had no significant findings, 82% with one or two small polyps, and 88% with multiple polyps, advanced polyps, or CRC.

The recommended time to repeat colonoscopy was greater than life expectancy for 6.6% of patients with less than 5 years of life expectancy and 6% with 5 to less than 10 years of life expectancy.
 

Nuanced decisions

The findings “may help refine decision-making” about the potential benefits and harms of pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy for older adults who have a history of polyps, Dr. Calderwood and colleagues say.

The risk for a colonoscopy complication has been estimated at 26 per 1,000 people, they note. That’s nearly 10 times greater than the potential benefits seen in their study (that is, identification of CRC in 23 of 9,831 people, or about 2.3 per 1,000).

In the study cohort, 10% of patients had comorbid conditions that have been associated with a higher risk for colonoscopy complications. Those with life expectancy of less than 5 years had higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation, which also is associated with increased risk for colonoscopy complications, including perforation.

Dr. Calderwood and colleagues suggest that clinicians use evidence regarding life expectancy and neoplasia progression to modify their recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy for older adults in the following ways:

• If life expectancy is less than 5 years, recommend against surveillance.
• If life expectancy is 5 to less than 10 years and the patient has only low-risk polyps, recommend against surveillance.
• If the patient is healthy with a life expectancy of 10+ years and has recently been found to have advanced polyps, recommend future surveillance colonoscopy, with a caveat that the ultimate decision is dependent on health and priorities at the time the colonoscopy is due to be performed.
• If future health is unknown or unclear, avoid giving definitive recommendations for future surveillance to allow the flexibility of deciding on the basis of risk and benefit when the time comes.

In comments to this news organization, Dr. Gellad noted that an assessment of patient life expectancy “is not readily accessible at the point of care. These are nuanced decisions that require shared decision-making. Sometimes that is best handled outside the procedure setting.”

Support for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gellad is a consultant for Merck and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for hair regrowth in adults with alopecia areata were reinforced by new results from clinical trials of two drugs presented at a late-breaker research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Based on phase 3 studies that document robust hair growth in about one third of patients, deuruxolitinib (CTP-543), an inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2 enzymes, has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received U.S. approval almost 1 year ago.

In his talk on THRIVE-AA2, a phase 3 trial of the investigational medicine deuruxolitinib, the principal investigator, Brett A. King, MD, PhD, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.”

THRIVE-AA2 was the second of two phase 3 studies of deuruxolitinib. King was a principal investigator for both pivotal trials, called THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE AA-2. He characterized the results of the two THRIVE trials as “comparable.”

Dr. King also was a principal investigator for the trials with baricitinib, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE AA-2, which were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trials for both drugs had similar designs and endpoints.
 

Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE studies

In the THRIVE-AA2 trial, 517 adult patients were enrolled with moderate to severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of ≥ 50%, which signifies a hair loss of at least 50%. Like THRIVE-AA1, patients participated at treatment centers in North America and Europe. About two-thirds were female. The mean age was 39 years. The majority of patients had complete or near complete hair loss at baseline.

“Many of these patients are the ones we have historically characterized as having alopecia totalis or universalis,” Dr. King said.

Participating patients were randomly assigned to 8 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, 12 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of ≤ 20% at week 24.

At 24 weeks, almost no patients in the placebo group (1%) vs. 33% and 38% in the 8 mg and 12 mg twice-daily groups, respectively, met the primary endpoint. Each active treatment group was highly significant vs. placebo.

Of the responders, the majority achieved complete or near complete hair growth as defined by a SALT score of ≤ 10%, Dr. King reported.

Based on a graph that showed a relatively steep climb over the entire 24-week study period, deuruxolitinib “had a really fast onset of action,” Dr. King said. By week 8, which was the time of the first assessment, both doses of deuruxolitinib were superior to placebo.

The majority of patients had complete or significant loss of eyebrows and eye lashes at baseline, but more than two-thirds of these patients had regrowth by week 24, Dr. King said. Again, no significant regrowth was observed in the placebo arm.

On the Satisfaction of Hair Patient Reported Outcomes (SPRO), more than half of patients on both doses reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the improvement when evaluated at 24 weeks.

“The patient satisfaction overshot what one would expect by looking at the SALT scores, but a lot of subjects were at the precipice of the primary endpoint, sitting on SALT scores of 21, 25, or 30,” Dr. King said.
 

High participation in extension trial

More than 90% of the patients assigned to deuruxolitinib completed the trial and have entered an open-label extension (OLE). Dr. King credited the substantial rates of hair growth and the low rate of significant adverse events for the high rate of transition to OLE. Those who experienced the response were motivated to maintain it.  

“This is a devastating disease. Patients want to get better,” Dr. King said.

There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events associated with deuruxolitinib, including no thromboembolic events or other off-target events that have been reported previously with other JAK inhibitors in other disease states, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Although some adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis, were observed more often in those taking deuruxolitinib than placebo, there were “very few” discontinuations because of an adverse event, he said.

The data of THRIVE-AA2 are wholly compatible with the previously reported 706-patient THRIVE-AA1, according to Dr. King. In THRIVE-AA1, the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20% was reached by 29.6%, 41.5%, and 0.8% of the 8 mg, 12 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores, safety, and tolerability were also similar, according to Dr. King.

The experience with deuruxolitinib in the THRIVE-AA phase 3 program is similar to the experience with baricitinib in the BRAVE-AA trials. Although they cannot be compared directly because of potential differences between study populations, the 4-mg dose of baricitinib also achieved SALT score ≤ 20 in about 35% of patients, he said. The proportion was lower in the 2-mg group but was also superior to the placebo group.

“JAK inhibitors are changing the paradigm of alopecia areata,” Dr. King said. Responding to a question about payers reluctant to reimburse therapies for a “cosmetic” condition, Dr. King added that the effective treatments are “changing the landscape of how we think about this disease.” Dr. King believes these kinds of data show that “we are literally transforming lives forever.”
 

Baricitinib and the BRAVE studies

When baricitinib received regulatory approval for alopecia areata last year, it was not just the first JAK inhibitor approved for this disease, but the first systemic therapy of any kind, according to Maryanne Senna, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the director of the Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence, Burlington, Mass. Dr. Senna was a clinical investigator of BRAVE-AA1, as well as of THRIVE-AA2.

Providing an update on the BRAVE-AA program, Dr. Senna reported 104-week data that appear to support the idea of a life-changing benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy. This is because the effects appear durable.

In the data she presented at the AAD, responders and mixed responders at 52 weeks were followed to 104 weeks. Mixed responders were defined as those without a SALT response of ≤ 20 at week 52 but who had achieved this degree of hair regrowth at some earlier point.

Of the responders, 90% maintained their response at 104 weeks. In addition, many of the mixed responders and patients with a partial response but who never achieved a SALT score ≤ 20% gained additional hair growth, including complete or near complete hair growth, when maintained on treatment over the 2 years of follow-up.

“The follow-up suggests that, if you keep patients on treatment, you can get many of them to a meaningful response,” she said.

Meanwhile, “there have been no new safety signals,” Dr. Senna said. She based this statement not only of the 104-week data but on follow-up of up to 3.6 years among patients who have remained on treatment after participating in previous studies.

According to Dr. Senna, the off-target events that have been reported previously in other diseases with other JAK inhibitors, such as major adverse cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events, have not so far been observed in the BRAVE-AA phase 3 program.

Baricitinib, much like all but one of the JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications, carries a black box warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, based on a rheumatoid arthritis study.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted deuruxolitinib Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata and Fast Track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata, according to its manufacturer Concert Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. King reports financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which provided the funding for the THRIVE-AA trial program, and for Eli Lilly, which provided funding for the BRAVE-AA trial program. Dr. Senna reports financial relationships with Arena pharmaceuticals, Follica, and both Concert Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for hair regrowth in adults with alopecia areata were reinforced by new results from clinical trials of two drugs presented at a late-breaker research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Based on phase 3 studies that document robust hair growth in about one third of patients, deuruxolitinib (CTP-543), an inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2 enzymes, has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received U.S. approval almost 1 year ago.

In his talk on THRIVE-AA2, a phase 3 trial of the investigational medicine deuruxolitinib, the principal investigator, Brett A. King, MD, PhD, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.”

THRIVE-AA2 was the second of two phase 3 studies of deuruxolitinib. King was a principal investigator for both pivotal trials, called THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE AA-2. He characterized the results of the two THRIVE trials as “comparable.”

Dr. King also was a principal investigator for the trials with baricitinib, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE AA-2, which were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trials for both drugs had similar designs and endpoints.
 

Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE studies

In the THRIVE-AA2 trial, 517 adult patients were enrolled with moderate to severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of ≥ 50%, which signifies a hair loss of at least 50%. Like THRIVE-AA1, patients participated at treatment centers in North America and Europe. About two-thirds were female. The mean age was 39 years. The majority of patients had complete or near complete hair loss at baseline.

“Many of these patients are the ones we have historically characterized as having alopecia totalis or universalis,” Dr. King said.

Participating patients were randomly assigned to 8 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, 12 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of ≤ 20% at week 24.

At 24 weeks, almost no patients in the placebo group (1%) vs. 33% and 38% in the 8 mg and 12 mg twice-daily groups, respectively, met the primary endpoint. Each active treatment group was highly significant vs. placebo.

Of the responders, the majority achieved complete or near complete hair growth as defined by a SALT score of ≤ 10%, Dr. King reported.

Based on a graph that showed a relatively steep climb over the entire 24-week study period, deuruxolitinib “had a really fast onset of action,” Dr. King said. By week 8, which was the time of the first assessment, both doses of deuruxolitinib were superior to placebo.

The majority of patients had complete or significant loss of eyebrows and eye lashes at baseline, but more than two-thirds of these patients had regrowth by week 24, Dr. King said. Again, no significant regrowth was observed in the placebo arm.

On the Satisfaction of Hair Patient Reported Outcomes (SPRO), more than half of patients on both doses reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the improvement when evaluated at 24 weeks.

“The patient satisfaction overshot what one would expect by looking at the SALT scores, but a lot of subjects were at the precipice of the primary endpoint, sitting on SALT scores of 21, 25, or 30,” Dr. King said.
 

High participation in extension trial

More than 90% of the patients assigned to deuruxolitinib completed the trial and have entered an open-label extension (OLE). Dr. King credited the substantial rates of hair growth and the low rate of significant adverse events for the high rate of transition to OLE. Those who experienced the response were motivated to maintain it.  

“This is a devastating disease. Patients want to get better,” Dr. King said.

There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events associated with deuruxolitinib, including no thromboembolic events or other off-target events that have been reported previously with other JAK inhibitors in other disease states, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Although some adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis, were observed more often in those taking deuruxolitinib than placebo, there were “very few” discontinuations because of an adverse event, he said.

The data of THRIVE-AA2 are wholly compatible with the previously reported 706-patient THRIVE-AA1, according to Dr. King. In THRIVE-AA1, the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20% was reached by 29.6%, 41.5%, and 0.8% of the 8 mg, 12 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores, safety, and tolerability were also similar, according to Dr. King.

The experience with deuruxolitinib in the THRIVE-AA phase 3 program is similar to the experience with baricitinib in the BRAVE-AA trials. Although they cannot be compared directly because of potential differences between study populations, the 4-mg dose of baricitinib also achieved SALT score ≤ 20 in about 35% of patients, he said. The proportion was lower in the 2-mg group but was also superior to the placebo group.

“JAK inhibitors are changing the paradigm of alopecia areata,” Dr. King said. Responding to a question about payers reluctant to reimburse therapies for a “cosmetic” condition, Dr. King added that the effective treatments are “changing the landscape of how we think about this disease.” Dr. King believes these kinds of data show that “we are literally transforming lives forever.”
 

Baricitinib and the BRAVE studies

When baricitinib received regulatory approval for alopecia areata last year, it was not just the first JAK inhibitor approved for this disease, but the first systemic therapy of any kind, according to Maryanne Senna, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the director of the Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence, Burlington, Mass. Dr. Senna was a clinical investigator of BRAVE-AA1, as well as of THRIVE-AA2.

Providing an update on the BRAVE-AA program, Dr. Senna reported 104-week data that appear to support the idea of a life-changing benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy. This is because the effects appear durable.

In the data she presented at the AAD, responders and mixed responders at 52 weeks were followed to 104 weeks. Mixed responders were defined as those without a SALT response of ≤ 20 at week 52 but who had achieved this degree of hair regrowth at some earlier point.

Of the responders, 90% maintained their response at 104 weeks. In addition, many of the mixed responders and patients with a partial response but who never achieved a SALT score ≤ 20% gained additional hair growth, including complete or near complete hair growth, when maintained on treatment over the 2 years of follow-up.

“The follow-up suggests that, if you keep patients on treatment, you can get many of them to a meaningful response,” she said.

Meanwhile, “there have been no new safety signals,” Dr. Senna said. She based this statement not only of the 104-week data but on follow-up of up to 3.6 years among patients who have remained on treatment after participating in previous studies.

According to Dr. Senna, the off-target events that have been reported previously in other diseases with other JAK inhibitors, such as major adverse cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events, have not so far been observed in the BRAVE-AA phase 3 program.

Baricitinib, much like all but one of the JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications, carries a black box warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, based on a rheumatoid arthritis study.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted deuruxolitinib Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata and Fast Track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata, according to its manufacturer Concert Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. King reports financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which provided the funding for the THRIVE-AA trial program, and for Eli Lilly, which provided funding for the BRAVE-AA trial program. Dr. Senna reports financial relationships with Arena pharmaceuticals, Follica, and both Concert Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for hair regrowth in adults with alopecia areata were reinforced by new results from clinical trials of two drugs presented at a late-breaker research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Based on phase 3 studies that document robust hair growth in about one third of patients, deuruxolitinib (CTP-543), an inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2 enzymes, has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received U.S. approval almost 1 year ago.

In his talk on THRIVE-AA2, a phase 3 trial of the investigational medicine deuruxolitinib, the principal investigator, Brett A. King, MD, PhD, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.”

THRIVE-AA2 was the second of two phase 3 studies of deuruxolitinib. King was a principal investigator for both pivotal trials, called THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE AA-2. He characterized the results of the two THRIVE trials as “comparable.”

Dr. King also was a principal investigator for the trials with baricitinib, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE AA-2, which were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trials for both drugs had similar designs and endpoints.
 

Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE studies

In the THRIVE-AA2 trial, 517 adult patients were enrolled with moderate to severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of ≥ 50%, which signifies a hair loss of at least 50%. Like THRIVE-AA1, patients participated at treatment centers in North America and Europe. About two-thirds were female. The mean age was 39 years. The majority of patients had complete or near complete hair loss at baseline.

“Many of these patients are the ones we have historically characterized as having alopecia totalis or universalis,” Dr. King said.

Participating patients were randomly assigned to 8 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, 12 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of ≤ 20% at week 24.

At 24 weeks, almost no patients in the placebo group (1%) vs. 33% and 38% in the 8 mg and 12 mg twice-daily groups, respectively, met the primary endpoint. Each active treatment group was highly significant vs. placebo.

Of the responders, the majority achieved complete or near complete hair growth as defined by a SALT score of ≤ 10%, Dr. King reported.

Based on a graph that showed a relatively steep climb over the entire 24-week study period, deuruxolitinib “had a really fast onset of action,” Dr. King said. By week 8, which was the time of the first assessment, both doses of deuruxolitinib were superior to placebo.

The majority of patients had complete or significant loss of eyebrows and eye lashes at baseline, but more than two-thirds of these patients had regrowth by week 24, Dr. King said. Again, no significant regrowth was observed in the placebo arm.

On the Satisfaction of Hair Patient Reported Outcomes (SPRO), more than half of patients on both doses reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the improvement when evaluated at 24 weeks.

“The patient satisfaction overshot what one would expect by looking at the SALT scores, but a lot of subjects were at the precipice of the primary endpoint, sitting on SALT scores of 21, 25, or 30,” Dr. King said.
 

High participation in extension trial

More than 90% of the patients assigned to deuruxolitinib completed the trial and have entered an open-label extension (OLE). Dr. King credited the substantial rates of hair growth and the low rate of significant adverse events for the high rate of transition to OLE. Those who experienced the response were motivated to maintain it.  

“This is a devastating disease. Patients want to get better,” Dr. King said.

There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events associated with deuruxolitinib, including no thromboembolic events or other off-target events that have been reported previously with other JAK inhibitors in other disease states, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Although some adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis, were observed more often in those taking deuruxolitinib than placebo, there were “very few” discontinuations because of an adverse event, he said.

The data of THRIVE-AA2 are wholly compatible with the previously reported 706-patient THRIVE-AA1, according to Dr. King. In THRIVE-AA1, the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20% was reached by 29.6%, 41.5%, and 0.8% of the 8 mg, 12 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores, safety, and tolerability were also similar, according to Dr. King.

The experience with deuruxolitinib in the THRIVE-AA phase 3 program is similar to the experience with baricitinib in the BRAVE-AA trials. Although they cannot be compared directly because of potential differences between study populations, the 4-mg dose of baricitinib also achieved SALT score ≤ 20 in about 35% of patients, he said. The proportion was lower in the 2-mg group but was also superior to the placebo group.

“JAK inhibitors are changing the paradigm of alopecia areata,” Dr. King said. Responding to a question about payers reluctant to reimburse therapies for a “cosmetic” condition, Dr. King added that the effective treatments are “changing the landscape of how we think about this disease.” Dr. King believes these kinds of data show that “we are literally transforming lives forever.”
 

Baricitinib and the BRAVE studies

When baricitinib received regulatory approval for alopecia areata last year, it was not just the first JAK inhibitor approved for this disease, but the first systemic therapy of any kind, according to Maryanne Senna, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the director of the Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence, Burlington, Mass. Dr. Senna was a clinical investigator of BRAVE-AA1, as well as of THRIVE-AA2.

Providing an update on the BRAVE-AA program, Dr. Senna reported 104-week data that appear to support the idea of a life-changing benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy. This is because the effects appear durable.

In the data she presented at the AAD, responders and mixed responders at 52 weeks were followed to 104 weeks. Mixed responders were defined as those without a SALT response of ≤ 20 at week 52 but who had achieved this degree of hair regrowth at some earlier point.

Of the responders, 90% maintained their response at 104 weeks. In addition, many of the mixed responders and patients with a partial response but who never achieved a SALT score ≤ 20% gained additional hair growth, including complete or near complete hair growth, when maintained on treatment over the 2 years of follow-up.

“The follow-up suggests that, if you keep patients on treatment, you can get many of them to a meaningful response,” she said.

Meanwhile, “there have been no new safety signals,” Dr. Senna said. She based this statement not only of the 104-week data but on follow-up of up to 3.6 years among patients who have remained on treatment after participating in previous studies.

According to Dr. Senna, the off-target events that have been reported previously in other diseases with other JAK inhibitors, such as major adverse cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events, have not so far been observed in the BRAVE-AA phase 3 program.

Baricitinib, much like all but one of the JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications, carries a black box warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, based on a rheumatoid arthritis study.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted deuruxolitinib Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata and Fast Track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata, according to its manufacturer Concert Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. King reports financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which provided the funding for the THRIVE-AA trial program, and for Eli Lilly, which provided funding for the BRAVE-AA trial program. Dr. Senna reports financial relationships with Arena pharmaceuticals, Follica, and both Concert Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.

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

Ascend Laboratories is recalling 10 lots of the oral anticoagulant dabigatran etexilate capsules (75 mg and 150 mg) because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.

To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.

Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.

Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).

Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

Ascend Laboratories is recalling 10 lots of the oral anticoagulant dabigatran etexilate capsules (75 mg and 150 mg) because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.

To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.

Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.

Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).

Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

Ascend Laboratories is recalling 10 lots of the oral anticoagulant dabigatran etexilate capsules (75 mg and 150 mg) because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.

To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.

Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.

Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).

Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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