Clinician Reviews

LONDON – Achieving a functional cure for hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not going to be easily achieved with the drugs that are currently in development, according to a presentation at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

“Intriguing results have been presented at ILC 2022 that must be carefully interpreted,” said Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, of Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France, during the viral hepatitis highlights session on the closing day of the meeting.

“New HBV drug development looks more complicated than initially expected and its goals and strategies need to be redefined and refocused,” he added

Steve Forrest & Andrew McConnell/EASL

“This is really something that came from the discussions we had during the sessions but also in the corridors,” Dr. Pawlotsky added. “We know it’s going to be difficult; we have to reset, restart – not from zero, but from not much – and revise our strategy,” he suggested.

There are many new drugs under investigation for HBV, Dr. Pawlotsky said, noting that the number of studies being presented at the meeting was reminiscent of the flurry of activity before a functional cure for hepatitis C had been found. “It’s good to see that this is happening again for HBV,” he said.

Indeed, there are many new direct-acting antiviral agents, immunomodulatory, or other approaches being tested, and some of the more advanced studies are “teaching us a few things and probably raising more questions than getting answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said.
 

The B-CLEAR study

One these studies is the phase 2b B-CLEAR study presented during the late-breaker session. This study involved bepirovirsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, and tested its efficacy and safety in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were either on or off stable nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA/NUC) therapy.

A similar proportion (28% and 29%, respectively) of patients achieved an hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the lower limit of quantification at the end of 24 weeks treatment. However, the effect on HBsAg varied according to the treatment arm, with changes to the dosing or switching to placebo indicating that the effect might wane when the treatment is stopped or if the dose is reduced.

“Interestingly, ALT elevations were observed in association with most HBsAg declines,” Dr. Pawlotsky pointed out. “I think we still have to determine whether this is good flare/bad flare, good sign/bad sign, of what is going to happen afterward.”
 

The REEF studies

Another approach highlighted was the combination of the silencing or small interfering RNA (siRNA) JNJ-3989 with the capsid assembly modulator (CAM) JNJ-6379 in the phase 2 REEF-1 and REEF-2 studies.

REEF-1, conducted in patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive or negative who were not treated with NA/NUC or were NA/NUC suppressed, showed a dose-dependent, but variable effect among individual patients as might be expected at the end of 48 weeks’ treatment. This was sustained at week 72, which was 24 weeks’ follow-up after stopping treatment.

However, pointed out Dr. Pawlotsky “I think the most important part of this is that if you add a CAM on top of the siRNA, you do not improve the effect on HBsAg levels.”

Then there is the REEF-2 study, testing the same combination but in only patients who were NA suppressed or HBeAg negative alongside standard NA/NUC therapy. As well as being the first novel combination treatment trial to report, this was essentially a stopping trial, Kosh Agarwal, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, MD, one of the study’s investigators explained separately at a media briefing.

Patients (n = 130) were treated for 48 weeks, then all treatment – including NA/NUC – was discontinued, with 48 weeks of follow-up after discontinuation, said Dr. Agarwal, who is a consultant hepatologist based at the Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College Hospital, London. He presented data from the first 24 week period after treatment had ended.

At the end of treatment, the combination had resulted in a mean reduction in HBsAg of 1.89 log₁₀ IU/mL versus a reduction of 0.06 for the NA/NUC-only group, which acted as the control group in this trial. But “no patient in this study lost their surface antigen, i.e., were cured of their hepatitis B in the active arm or in the control arm,” Dr. Agarwal said.

“We didn’t achieve a cure, but a significant proportion were in a ‘controlled’ viral stage,” said Dr. Agarwal. Indeed, during his presentation of the findings, he showed that HBsAg inhibition was maintained in the majority (72%) of patients after stopping the combination.

While the trial’s primary endpoint wasn’t met, “it’s a really important study,” said Dr. Agarwal. “This [study] was fulfilled and delivered in the COVID era, so a lot of patients were looked after very carefully by sites in Europe,” he observed.

Further follow-up from the trial is expected, and Dr. Agarwal said that the subsequent discussion will “take us back to the drawing board to think about whether we need better antiviral treatments or whether we need to think about different combinations, and whether actually stopping treatment with every treatment is the right strategy to take.”

Both Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Pawlotsky flagged up the case of one patient in the trial who had been in the control arm and had experienced severe HBV reactivation that required a liver transplant.

“This patient is a warning signal,” Dr. Pawlotsky suggested in his talk. “When we think about NUC stopping, we have to think about the potential benefit in terms of HbsAg loss but also the potential risks.”

While Dr. Agarwal had noted that it highlights that “careful design of retreatment criteria is important in studies assessing the NA/NUC-stopping concept”.
 

Monoclonal antibody shows promise

Other combinations could involve an siRNA and an immunomodulatory agent and, during the poster sessions at the meeting, Dr. Agarwal also presented data from an ongoing phase 1 study with a novel, neutralizing monoclonal antibody called VIR-3434.

This monoclonal antibody is novel because it is thought to have several modes of action, first by binding to HBV and affecting its entry into liver cells, then by presenting the virus to T cells and stimulating a ‘vaccinal’ or immune effect, and then by helping the with the clearance of HBsAg and delivery of the virus to dendritic cells.

In the study, single doses of VIR-3434 were found to be well tolerated and to produce rapid reductions in HBsAg, with the highest dose used (300 mg) producing the greatest and most durable effect up to week 8.

VIR-3434 is also being tested in combination with other drugs in the phase 2 MARCH trial. One of these combinations is VIR-3434 together with an investigational siRNA dubbed VIR-2218. Preclinical work presented at ILC 2022 suggests that this combination appears to be capable of reducing HBsAg to a greater extent than using either agent alone.
 

Rethinking the strategy to get to a cure

Of course, VIR-3434 is one of several immunomodulatory compounds in development. There are therapeutic vaccines, drugs targeting the innate immune response, other monoclonal antibodies, T-cell receptors, checkpoint inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors. Then there are other compounds such as entry inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, and farnesoid X receptor agonists.

“I finish this meeting with more questions than answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said. “What is the right target to enhance specific anti-HBV immunity? Does in vivo induction of immune responses translate into any beneficial effect on HBV infection? Will therapeutic vaccines every work in a viral infection?”

Moreover, he asked, “how can we avoid the side effect of enhancing multiple and complex nonspecific immune responses? Are treatment-induced flares good flares or bad flares? All of these are questions that are really unanswered and that we’ll have to get answers to in the near future.”

The B-CLEAR study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The REEF-2 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The VIR-3434 studies were funded by Vir Biotechnology. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support, acted as a consultant, adviser, or speaker, and participated in advisory boards for multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This news organization was unable to verify Dr. Agarwal’s ties to Vir Biotechnology, but he presented one of the posters on VIR-3434 at the meeting and has been involved in the phase 1 study that was reported.


 

LONDON – Achieving a functional cure for hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not going to be easily achieved with the drugs that are currently in development, according to a presentation at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

“Intriguing results have been presented at ILC 2022 that must be carefully interpreted,” said Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, of Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France, during the viral hepatitis highlights session on the closing day of the meeting.

“New HBV drug development looks more complicated than initially expected and its goals and strategies need to be redefined and refocused,” he added

Steve Forrest & Andrew McConnell/EASL

“This is really something that came from the discussions we had during the sessions but also in the corridors,” Dr. Pawlotsky added. “We know it’s going to be difficult; we have to reset, restart – not from zero, but from not much – and revise our strategy,” he suggested.

There are many new drugs under investigation for HBV, Dr. Pawlotsky said, noting that the number of studies being presented at the meeting was reminiscent of the flurry of activity before a functional cure for hepatitis C had been found. “It’s good to see that this is happening again for HBV,” he said.

Indeed, there are many new direct-acting antiviral agents, immunomodulatory, or other approaches being tested, and some of the more advanced studies are “teaching us a few things and probably raising more questions than getting answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said.
 

The B-CLEAR study

One these studies is the phase 2b B-CLEAR study presented during the late-breaker session. This study involved bepirovirsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, and tested its efficacy and safety in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were either on or off stable nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA/NUC) therapy.

A similar proportion (28% and 29%, respectively) of patients achieved an hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the lower limit of quantification at the end of 24 weeks treatment. However, the effect on HBsAg varied according to the treatment arm, with changes to the dosing or switching to placebo indicating that the effect might wane when the treatment is stopped or if the dose is reduced.

“Interestingly, ALT elevations were observed in association with most HBsAg declines,” Dr. Pawlotsky pointed out. “I think we still have to determine whether this is good flare/bad flare, good sign/bad sign, of what is going to happen afterward.”
 

The REEF studies

Another approach highlighted was the combination of the silencing or small interfering RNA (siRNA) JNJ-3989 with the capsid assembly modulator (CAM) JNJ-6379 in the phase 2 REEF-1 and REEF-2 studies.

REEF-1, conducted in patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive or negative who were not treated with NA/NUC or were NA/NUC suppressed, showed a dose-dependent, but variable effect among individual patients as might be expected at the end of 48 weeks’ treatment. This was sustained at week 72, which was 24 weeks’ follow-up after stopping treatment.

However, pointed out Dr. Pawlotsky “I think the most important part of this is that if you add a CAM on top of the siRNA, you do not improve the effect on HBsAg levels.”

Then there is the REEF-2 study, testing the same combination but in only patients who were NA suppressed or HBeAg negative alongside standard NA/NUC therapy. As well as being the first novel combination treatment trial to report, this was essentially a stopping trial, Kosh Agarwal, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, MD, one of the study’s investigators explained separately at a media briefing.

Patients (n = 130) were treated for 48 weeks, then all treatment – including NA/NUC – was discontinued, with 48 weeks of follow-up after discontinuation, said Dr. Agarwal, who is a consultant hepatologist based at the Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College Hospital, London. He presented data from the first 24 week period after treatment had ended.

At the end of treatment, the combination had resulted in a mean reduction in HBsAg of 1.89 log₁₀ IU/mL versus a reduction of 0.06 for the NA/NUC-only group, which acted as the control group in this trial. But “no patient in this study lost their surface antigen, i.e., were cured of their hepatitis B in the active arm or in the control arm,” Dr. Agarwal said.

“We didn’t achieve a cure, but a significant proportion were in a ‘controlled’ viral stage,” said Dr. Agarwal. Indeed, during his presentation of the findings, he showed that HBsAg inhibition was maintained in the majority (72%) of patients after stopping the combination.

While the trial’s primary endpoint wasn’t met, “it’s a really important study,” said Dr. Agarwal. “This [study] was fulfilled and delivered in the COVID era, so a lot of patients were looked after very carefully by sites in Europe,” he observed.

Further follow-up from the trial is expected, and Dr. Agarwal said that the subsequent discussion will “take us back to the drawing board to think about whether we need better antiviral treatments or whether we need to think about different combinations, and whether actually stopping treatment with every treatment is the right strategy to take.”

Both Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Pawlotsky flagged up the case of one patient in the trial who had been in the control arm and had experienced severe HBV reactivation that required a liver transplant.

“This patient is a warning signal,” Dr. Pawlotsky suggested in his talk. “When we think about NUC stopping, we have to think about the potential benefit in terms of HbsAg loss but also the potential risks.”

While Dr. Agarwal had noted that it highlights that “careful design of retreatment criteria is important in studies assessing the NA/NUC-stopping concept”.
 

Monoclonal antibody shows promise

Other combinations could involve an siRNA and an immunomodulatory agent and, during the poster sessions at the meeting, Dr. Agarwal also presented data from an ongoing phase 1 study with a novel, neutralizing monoclonal antibody called VIR-3434.

This monoclonal antibody is novel because it is thought to have several modes of action, first by binding to HBV and affecting its entry into liver cells, then by presenting the virus to T cells and stimulating a ‘vaccinal’ or immune effect, and then by helping the with the clearance of HBsAg and delivery of the virus to dendritic cells.

In the study, single doses of VIR-3434 were found to be well tolerated and to produce rapid reductions in HBsAg, with the highest dose used (300 mg) producing the greatest and most durable effect up to week 8.

VIR-3434 is also being tested in combination with other drugs in the phase 2 MARCH trial. One of these combinations is VIR-3434 together with an investigational siRNA dubbed VIR-2218. Preclinical work presented at ILC 2022 suggests that this combination appears to be capable of reducing HBsAg to a greater extent than using either agent alone.
 

Rethinking the strategy to get to a cure

Of course, VIR-3434 is one of several immunomodulatory compounds in development. There are therapeutic vaccines, drugs targeting the innate immune response, other monoclonal antibodies, T-cell receptors, checkpoint inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors. Then there are other compounds such as entry inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, and farnesoid X receptor agonists.

“I finish this meeting with more questions than answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said. “What is the right target to enhance specific anti-HBV immunity? Does in vivo induction of immune responses translate into any beneficial effect on HBV infection? Will therapeutic vaccines every work in a viral infection?”

Moreover, he asked, “how can we avoid the side effect of enhancing multiple and complex nonspecific immune responses? Are treatment-induced flares good flares or bad flares? All of these are questions that are really unanswered and that we’ll have to get answers to in the near future.”

The B-CLEAR study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The REEF-2 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The VIR-3434 studies were funded by Vir Biotechnology. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support, acted as a consultant, adviser, or speaker, and participated in advisory boards for multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This news organization was unable to verify Dr. Agarwal’s ties to Vir Biotechnology, but he presented one of the posters on VIR-3434 at the meeting and has been involved in the phase 1 study that was reported.


 

LONDON – Achieving a functional cure for hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not going to be easily achieved with the drugs that are currently in development, according to a presentation at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

“Intriguing results have been presented at ILC 2022 that must be carefully interpreted,” said Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, of Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France, during the viral hepatitis highlights session on the closing day of the meeting.

“New HBV drug development looks more complicated than initially expected and its goals and strategies need to be redefined and refocused,” he added

Steve Forrest & Andrew McConnell/EASL

“This is really something that came from the discussions we had during the sessions but also in the corridors,” Dr. Pawlotsky added. “We know it’s going to be difficult; we have to reset, restart – not from zero, but from not much – and revise our strategy,” he suggested.

There are many new drugs under investigation for HBV, Dr. Pawlotsky said, noting that the number of studies being presented at the meeting was reminiscent of the flurry of activity before a functional cure for hepatitis C had been found. “It’s good to see that this is happening again for HBV,” he said.

Indeed, there are many new direct-acting antiviral agents, immunomodulatory, or other approaches being tested, and some of the more advanced studies are “teaching us a few things and probably raising more questions than getting answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said.
 

The B-CLEAR study

One these studies is the phase 2b B-CLEAR study presented during the late-breaker session. This study involved bepirovirsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, and tested its efficacy and safety in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were either on or off stable nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA/NUC) therapy.

A similar proportion (28% and 29%, respectively) of patients achieved an hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the lower limit of quantification at the end of 24 weeks treatment. However, the effect on HBsAg varied according to the treatment arm, with changes to the dosing or switching to placebo indicating that the effect might wane when the treatment is stopped or if the dose is reduced.

“Interestingly, ALT elevations were observed in association with most HBsAg declines,” Dr. Pawlotsky pointed out. “I think we still have to determine whether this is good flare/bad flare, good sign/bad sign, of what is going to happen afterward.”
 

The REEF studies

Another approach highlighted was the combination of the silencing or small interfering RNA (siRNA) JNJ-3989 with the capsid assembly modulator (CAM) JNJ-6379 in the phase 2 REEF-1 and REEF-2 studies.

REEF-1, conducted in patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive or negative who were not treated with NA/NUC or were NA/NUC suppressed, showed a dose-dependent, but variable effect among individual patients as might be expected at the end of 48 weeks’ treatment. This was sustained at week 72, which was 24 weeks’ follow-up after stopping treatment.

However, pointed out Dr. Pawlotsky “I think the most important part of this is that if you add a CAM on top of the siRNA, you do not improve the effect on HBsAg levels.”

Then there is the REEF-2 study, testing the same combination but in only patients who were NA suppressed or HBeAg negative alongside standard NA/NUC therapy. As well as being the first novel combination treatment trial to report, this was essentially a stopping trial, Kosh Agarwal, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, MD, one of the study’s investigators explained separately at a media briefing.

Patients (n = 130) were treated for 48 weeks, then all treatment – including NA/NUC – was discontinued, with 48 weeks of follow-up after discontinuation, said Dr. Agarwal, who is a consultant hepatologist based at the Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College Hospital, London. He presented data from the first 24 week period after treatment had ended.

At the end of treatment, the combination had resulted in a mean reduction in HBsAg of 1.89 log₁₀ IU/mL versus a reduction of 0.06 for the NA/NUC-only group, which acted as the control group in this trial. But “no patient in this study lost their surface antigen, i.e., were cured of their hepatitis B in the active arm or in the control arm,” Dr. Agarwal said.

“We didn’t achieve a cure, but a significant proportion were in a ‘controlled’ viral stage,” said Dr. Agarwal. Indeed, during his presentation of the findings, he showed that HBsAg inhibition was maintained in the majority (72%) of patients after stopping the combination.

While the trial’s primary endpoint wasn’t met, “it’s a really important study,” said Dr. Agarwal. “This [study] was fulfilled and delivered in the COVID era, so a lot of patients were looked after very carefully by sites in Europe,” he observed.

Further follow-up from the trial is expected, and Dr. Agarwal said that the subsequent discussion will “take us back to the drawing board to think about whether we need better antiviral treatments or whether we need to think about different combinations, and whether actually stopping treatment with every treatment is the right strategy to take.”

Both Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Pawlotsky flagged up the case of one patient in the trial who had been in the control arm and had experienced severe HBV reactivation that required a liver transplant.

“This patient is a warning signal,” Dr. Pawlotsky suggested in his talk. “When we think about NUC stopping, we have to think about the potential benefit in terms of HbsAg loss but also the potential risks.”

While Dr. Agarwal had noted that it highlights that “careful design of retreatment criteria is important in studies assessing the NA/NUC-stopping concept”.
 

Monoclonal antibody shows promise

Other combinations could involve an siRNA and an immunomodulatory agent and, during the poster sessions at the meeting, Dr. Agarwal also presented data from an ongoing phase 1 study with a novel, neutralizing monoclonal antibody called VIR-3434.

This monoclonal antibody is novel because it is thought to have several modes of action, first by binding to HBV and affecting its entry into liver cells, then by presenting the virus to T cells and stimulating a ‘vaccinal’ or immune effect, and then by helping the with the clearance of HBsAg and delivery of the virus to dendritic cells.

In the study, single doses of VIR-3434 were found to be well tolerated and to produce rapid reductions in HBsAg, with the highest dose used (300 mg) producing the greatest and most durable effect up to week 8.

VIR-3434 is also being tested in combination with other drugs in the phase 2 MARCH trial. One of these combinations is VIR-3434 together with an investigational siRNA dubbed VIR-2218. Preclinical work presented at ILC 2022 suggests that this combination appears to be capable of reducing HBsAg to a greater extent than using either agent alone.
 

Rethinking the strategy to get to a cure

Of course, VIR-3434 is one of several immunomodulatory compounds in development. There are therapeutic vaccines, drugs targeting the innate immune response, other monoclonal antibodies, T-cell receptors, checkpoint inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors. Then there are other compounds such as entry inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, and farnesoid X receptor agonists.

“I finish this meeting with more questions than answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said. “What is the right target to enhance specific anti-HBV immunity? Does in vivo induction of immune responses translate into any beneficial effect on HBV infection? Will therapeutic vaccines every work in a viral infection?”

Moreover, he asked, “how can we avoid the side effect of enhancing multiple and complex nonspecific immune responses? Are treatment-induced flares good flares or bad flares? All of these are questions that are really unanswered and that we’ll have to get answers to in the near future.”

The B-CLEAR study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The REEF-2 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The VIR-3434 studies were funded by Vir Biotechnology. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support, acted as a consultant, adviser, or speaker, and participated in advisory boards for multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This news organization was unable to verify Dr. Agarwal’s ties to Vir Biotechnology, but he presented one of the posters on VIR-3434 at the meeting and has been involved in the phase 1 study that was reported.


 

A new analysis of the REDUCE-IT study has reignited concerns that the benefit shown by the high-dose fish oil product in the study, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), may have been related to harms caused by the placebo mineral oil.

Results show that allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels of these biomarkers increased among those allocated to mineral oil.

At 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline in the mineral oil group were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin (IL)-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and 28.9% for IL-1β. The changes were similar at 24 months. However, in the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months.

The study was published online in Circulation.

The authors, led by Paul Ridker, MD, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, do not voice much opinion on what the results mean, concluding that “the effect of these findings on the interpretation of the REDUCE-IT trial results remains unclear and will require further investigation.”

They also say that a second icosapent ethyl trial using a nonmineral oil comparator “would help resolve ongoing controversy.”

However, the authors are a mixed group; Dr. Ridker and some of his coauthors were not part of the original REDUCE-IT trial, whereas other coauthors were members of the REDUCE-IT steering committee, and one was an employee of Amarin.

Lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, also from Brigham & Women’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the current study, played down the new findings, saying they did not offer much new incremental information on mechanistic insight.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Smoking gun’

One of the loudest critics of the study, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, described the new findings as “the closest thing I’ve seen to a smoking gun in medicine for a long, long time.”

“The result of this new analysis shows that mineral oil increases virtually every inflammatory and lipid marker that they measured,” he commented.

“There are a lot of theories, but the bottom line is that something really bad happened in the mineral-oil group, which makes icosapent ethyl look efficacious. In my view, this needs to be reviewed by the FDA for consideration of removing the label claim for cardiovascular benefit.”

Other experts in the field not directly involved in the study voiced concern about these new findings, adding to calls for another trial.

In a Twitter thread on the issue, Harlan Krumholz, MD, describes the Circulation publication as “an exceptionally important article,” adding that it is “time to rethink this drug.”

“My point is ... once you know you have non-neutral comparator and the effect on risk biomarkers is far from trivial ... then you have introduced substantial uncertainty about the trial result, as conveyed by the authors ... and no one can say what would happen with a neutral comparator,” Dr. Krumholz writes.

In an accompanying editorial in Circulation, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, concludes that “the hard reality is that we are left with uncertainties and the questions raised by use of the mineral oil as placebo can only be answered by another randomized controlled trial.”

New data do not change the debate

“We did a large, well-powered randomized trial, and this paper shouldn’t change anything in how that trial should be interpreted,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

He claims the new biomarkers evaluated in the study are correlated with LDL and CRP, data which have already been reported and analyzed so have limited relevance.

“It’s not really independent biomarker information; this is what we would expect to see when we see small increases in LDL and CRP. So, I don’t think this new information fundamentally changes the debate,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that the study highlights relative increases rather than absolute increases in the biomarkers, making it seem more alarming than is actually the case.

“The paper makes it seem like that there are large increases in these other biomarkers, but the values reported are relative increases and the absolute increases were actually rather small. In many cases, the changes reported are less than the lower limit of quantification of the assay used,” he noted.

He added: “Even if one is unable to get around the placebo issue in the REDUCE-IT trial, there will always be the JELIS trial – a randomized trial with no placebo showing a 19% relative risk reduction. While the biomarker data may be interesting, what really matters in the end is clinical events. And significant reductions in two independent trials should be enough.”

Dr. Bhatt says the REDUCE-IT steering committee does not believe another trial is needed. “Maybe a different population would be good – such as primary prevention, patients without elevated triglycerides – but just repeating REDUCE- IT with a different placebo would be a waste of resources,” he commented.

But Dr. Nissen refuted Dr. Bhatt’s claims.

“These biomarkers are not in the same pathways as LDL and CRP, and these are not small increases. In the CANTOS trial, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-1β beta showed a significant benefit. The increase in interleukin-1β now reported in REDUCE-IT is exactly the opposite of CANTOS,” he pointed out.

“The FDA did not know about these additional biomarkers when it reviewed the data on LDL and CRP. Now we have new information. It needs to be looked at again,” Dr. Nissen added.

Funding for the study was provided by Amarin Pharma. Dr. Bhatt was the lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial. Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator the STRENGTH trial. Further disclosures of the authors can be found in Circulation.

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

A new analysis of the REDUCE-IT study has reignited concerns that the benefit shown by the high-dose fish oil product in the study, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), may have been related to harms caused by the placebo mineral oil.

Results show that allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels of these biomarkers increased among those allocated to mineral oil.

At 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline in the mineral oil group were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin (IL)-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and 28.9% for IL-1β. The changes were similar at 24 months. However, in the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months.

The study was published online in Circulation.

The authors, led by Paul Ridker, MD, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, do not voice much opinion on what the results mean, concluding that “the effect of these findings on the interpretation of the REDUCE-IT trial results remains unclear and will require further investigation.”

They also say that a second icosapent ethyl trial using a nonmineral oil comparator “would help resolve ongoing controversy.”

However, the authors are a mixed group; Dr. Ridker and some of his coauthors were not part of the original REDUCE-IT trial, whereas other coauthors were members of the REDUCE-IT steering committee, and one was an employee of Amarin.

Lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, also from Brigham & Women’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the current study, played down the new findings, saying they did not offer much new incremental information on mechanistic insight.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Smoking gun’

One of the loudest critics of the study, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, described the new findings as “the closest thing I’ve seen to a smoking gun in medicine for a long, long time.”

“The result of this new analysis shows that mineral oil increases virtually every inflammatory and lipid marker that they measured,” he commented.

“There are a lot of theories, but the bottom line is that something really bad happened in the mineral-oil group, which makes icosapent ethyl look efficacious. In my view, this needs to be reviewed by the FDA for consideration of removing the label claim for cardiovascular benefit.”

Other experts in the field not directly involved in the study voiced concern about these new findings, adding to calls for another trial.

In a Twitter thread on the issue, Harlan Krumholz, MD, describes the Circulation publication as “an exceptionally important article,” adding that it is “time to rethink this drug.”

“My point is ... once you know you have non-neutral comparator and the effect on risk biomarkers is far from trivial ... then you have introduced substantial uncertainty about the trial result, as conveyed by the authors ... and no one can say what would happen with a neutral comparator,” Dr. Krumholz writes.

In an accompanying editorial in Circulation, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, concludes that “the hard reality is that we are left with uncertainties and the questions raised by use of the mineral oil as placebo can only be answered by another randomized controlled trial.”

New data do not change the debate

“We did a large, well-powered randomized trial, and this paper shouldn’t change anything in how that trial should be interpreted,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

He claims the new biomarkers evaluated in the study are correlated with LDL and CRP, data which have already been reported and analyzed so have limited relevance.

“It’s not really independent biomarker information; this is what we would expect to see when we see small increases in LDL and CRP. So, I don’t think this new information fundamentally changes the debate,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that the study highlights relative increases rather than absolute increases in the biomarkers, making it seem more alarming than is actually the case.

“The paper makes it seem like that there are large increases in these other biomarkers, but the values reported are relative increases and the absolute increases were actually rather small. In many cases, the changes reported are less than the lower limit of quantification of the assay used,” he noted.

He added: “Even if one is unable to get around the placebo issue in the REDUCE-IT trial, there will always be the JELIS trial – a randomized trial with no placebo showing a 19% relative risk reduction. While the biomarker data may be interesting, what really matters in the end is clinical events. And significant reductions in two independent trials should be enough.”

Dr. Bhatt says the REDUCE-IT steering committee does not believe another trial is needed. “Maybe a different population would be good – such as primary prevention, patients without elevated triglycerides – but just repeating REDUCE- IT with a different placebo would be a waste of resources,” he commented.

But Dr. Nissen refuted Dr. Bhatt’s claims.

“These biomarkers are not in the same pathways as LDL and CRP, and these are not small increases. In the CANTOS trial, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-1β beta showed a significant benefit. The increase in interleukin-1β now reported in REDUCE-IT is exactly the opposite of CANTOS,” he pointed out.

“The FDA did not know about these additional biomarkers when it reviewed the data on LDL and CRP. Now we have new information. It needs to be looked at again,” Dr. Nissen added.

Funding for the study was provided by Amarin Pharma. Dr. Bhatt was the lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial. Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator the STRENGTH trial. Further disclosures of the authors can be found in Circulation.

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

A new analysis of the REDUCE-IT study has reignited concerns that the benefit shown by the high-dose fish oil product in the study, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), may have been related to harms caused by the placebo mineral oil.

Results show that allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels of these biomarkers increased among those allocated to mineral oil.

At 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline in the mineral oil group were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin (IL)-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and 28.9% for IL-1β. The changes were similar at 24 months. However, in the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months.

The study was published online in Circulation.

The authors, led by Paul Ridker, MD, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, do not voice much opinion on what the results mean, concluding that “the effect of these findings on the interpretation of the REDUCE-IT trial results remains unclear and will require further investigation.”

They also say that a second icosapent ethyl trial using a nonmineral oil comparator “would help resolve ongoing controversy.”

However, the authors are a mixed group; Dr. Ridker and some of his coauthors were not part of the original REDUCE-IT trial, whereas other coauthors were members of the REDUCE-IT steering committee, and one was an employee of Amarin.

Lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, also from Brigham & Women’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the current study, played down the new findings, saying they did not offer much new incremental information on mechanistic insight.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

‘Smoking gun’

One of the loudest critics of the study, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, described the new findings as “the closest thing I’ve seen to a smoking gun in medicine for a long, long time.”

“The result of this new analysis shows that mineral oil increases virtually every inflammatory and lipid marker that they measured,” he commented.

“There are a lot of theories, but the bottom line is that something really bad happened in the mineral-oil group, which makes icosapent ethyl look efficacious. In my view, this needs to be reviewed by the FDA for consideration of removing the label claim for cardiovascular benefit.”

Other experts in the field not directly involved in the study voiced concern about these new findings, adding to calls for another trial.

In a Twitter thread on the issue, Harlan Krumholz, MD, describes the Circulation publication as “an exceptionally important article,” adding that it is “time to rethink this drug.”

“My point is ... once you know you have non-neutral comparator and the effect on risk biomarkers is far from trivial ... then you have introduced substantial uncertainty about the trial result, as conveyed by the authors ... and no one can say what would happen with a neutral comparator,” Dr. Krumholz writes.

In an accompanying editorial in Circulation, Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, concludes that “the hard reality is that we are left with uncertainties and the questions raised by use of the mineral oil as placebo can only be answered by another randomized controlled trial.”

New data do not change the debate

“We did a large, well-powered randomized trial, and this paper shouldn’t change anything in how that trial should be interpreted,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

He claims the new biomarkers evaluated in the study are correlated with LDL and CRP, data which have already been reported and analyzed so have limited relevance.

“It’s not really independent biomarker information; this is what we would expect to see when we see small increases in LDL and CRP. So, I don’t think this new information fundamentally changes the debate,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that the study highlights relative increases rather than absolute increases in the biomarkers, making it seem more alarming than is actually the case.

“The paper makes it seem like that there are large increases in these other biomarkers, but the values reported are relative increases and the absolute increases were actually rather small. In many cases, the changes reported are less than the lower limit of quantification of the assay used,” he noted.

He added: “Even if one is unable to get around the placebo issue in the REDUCE-IT trial, there will always be the JELIS trial – a randomized trial with no placebo showing a 19% relative risk reduction. While the biomarker data may be interesting, what really matters in the end is clinical events. And significant reductions in two independent trials should be enough.”

Dr. Bhatt says the REDUCE-IT steering committee does not believe another trial is needed. “Maybe a different population would be good – such as primary prevention, patients without elevated triglycerides – but just repeating REDUCE- IT with a different placebo would be a waste of resources,” he commented.

But Dr. Nissen refuted Dr. Bhatt’s claims.

“These biomarkers are not in the same pathways as LDL and CRP, and these are not small increases. In the CANTOS trial, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-1β beta showed a significant benefit. The increase in interleukin-1β now reported in REDUCE-IT is exactly the opposite of CANTOS,” he pointed out.

“The FDA did not know about these additional biomarkers when it reviewed the data on LDL and CRP. Now we have new information. It needs to be looked at again,” Dr. Nissen added.

Funding for the study was provided by Amarin Pharma. Dr. Bhatt was the lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial. Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator the STRENGTH trial. Further disclosures of the authors can be found in Circulation.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

The fourth vaccination against COVID-19 is the subject of intense discussion. Immunity against new Omicron variants (currently BA.4 and BA.5) is getting weaker and weaker. Is another vaccination with the available vaccines worth it?

For Leif Erik Sander, MD, director of infectious diseases and pneumology at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, the latest data send a clear message. “The COVID-19 vaccination is still effective against Omicron. After three doses of the vaccine, it continues to prevent severe diseases, respiratory failures, and death,” he reported at the 62nd Congress of the German Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine Society in Leipzig.

The most recent data from the United Kingdom show that the vaccine’s effectiveness against Omicron decreases after just a few months, which speaks in favor of a fourth vaccination. “Omicron is a development that we did not anticipate occurring so early on,” said Dr. Sander.

In terms of phylogenetics, Omicron is far removed from the previous variants of concern. More than 30 mutations to the spike protein (the antigen that is vaccinated against) foster the loss of immunity.
 

Boosters broaden immunity

“The booster makes all the difference here,” emphasized Dr. Sander. Experiments at Charité Berlin show that after double vaccination, the vaccination sera from healthy young people no longer neutralizes Omicron. But a third vaccination confers a very good neutralizing titer, even against Omicron.

“The third vaccination broadens the humoral immune response against the spike protein so that conserved epitopes that are unchanged, even in Omicron, are addressed, with the result that you have neutralization capacity again,” the infectious diseases specialist explained.
 

Continued protection

However, data from the United Kingdom on vaccine effectiveness show where the limit lies. Initially, after three doses, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease after Omicron infection is very good. This effectiveness decreases significantly over the course of the next few months. “Lots of people experience an Omicron infection despite the booster,” said Mr. Sander.

Nonetheless, the high incidence of Omicron infections in the recent past has not overwhelmed the health care system. “This is because the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe diseases that require hospitalization and against respiratory failure is still good in the at-risk population over the age of 65, once they have had their three vaccinations,” said Dr. Sander. The data also show that there is good protection of over 90%, even against mortality.
 

Waning observed

It could be said that currently, vaccination even continues to work against Omicron, says Dr. Sander. It prevents severe disease, respiratory failure, and death. Nonetheless, after just 3 months, a slight waning of immune protection can be observed in all three endpoints.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether a fourth vaccination is worthwhile. In Israel, “Delta was successfully eradicated with the third vaccination,” and now they are trying this again for Omicron with a fourth vaccination, reported Dr. Sander.
 

Fourth vaccination protective

The first investigations show that protection against severe disease can be increased once more. “For the over-60s, protection is almost quadrupled through the fourth vaccination,” says Dr. Sander. “However, this is still plagued with a lot of uncertainty; it is still not known how stable it is.”

There is hope on the basis of results of an as yet non–peer-reviewed study from Sweden, which is currently available only as a preprint. That study shows that a fourth vaccination in a high-risk population of care-home residents and people older than 80 years can halve overall mortality. “If this can be confirmed and replicated, it must be recommended quite extensively for this high-risk group,” said Dr. Sander. The Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany is currently recommending that high-risk groups be vaccinated against COVID-19 for the fourth time. To date, though, this has only been implemented halfheartedly.
 

Propensity for mutation

Omicron keeps developing. Following BA.1 and the more infectious subvariant BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 are spreading in Germany. “To date, there is no evidence that vaccine protection against severe diseases has changed as a result of BA.2 emerging,” said Dr. Sander.

However, the loss of immunity against BA.4 and BA.5 is more strongly pronounced. “If you were infected with BA.1, you are not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. Lessened immunity from BA.4 and BA.5 is even more pronounced. “Anyone who was infected with BA.1 is not immune to BA.5,” says Dr. Sander. The two clades not only have spike protein mutations shared by BA.2 but also additional spike protein mutations. According to the expert, it could well be that these strains will prevail because they are best able to avoid the immunity of the population.
 

Adapted vaccines feasible?

“Vaccines adapted to BA.1 were developed very early on and were also part of clinical research,” said Dr. Sander. The initial data indicate that additional antibody responses are being mobilized that may neutralize the new variants.

It was deduced from trials on monkeys that the available vaccines were so good that only small improvements were to be expected, said Dr. Sander.
 

Moderna’s adapted vaccine

The U.S. pharmaceutical company Moderna recently submitted the first results regarding its bivalent Omicron vaccine mRNA-1273.214, which is adapted to Omicron BA.1. Data from BioNTech are expected soon.

Moderna tested a booster that contains both the spike mRNA from the original vaccine and a new mRNA adapted to the Omicron variant BA.1. The experimental vaccine mRNA-1273.214 exhibited an eightfold increase in geometric mean neutralization titer against Omicron in study participants who were seronegative at the start, compared with the already-approved vaccine.

In its latest notice, Moderna did not publish any data on how effective the updated vaccine is against the virus variants BA.4 or BA.5. Data on clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization or mortality, are also not available.
 

Conservative epitopes

Should it be assumed that the development of vaccines will always lag the emergence of new subvariants? In this respect, Dr. Sander appears optimistic. “The immunological mechanism is clear, that various B cells and antibodies will be formed that are directed against conservative epitopes that have various variants. This is good news, since we do not want to protect against BA.1 now, just for BA.8 to emerge when the vaccine goes to market. We want to protect ourselves as broadly as possible, and it seems like it may be possible to do so with this vaccine.”

Double vaccination?

Dr. Sander anticipates that a fourth vaccination against COVID-19 will occur with the next wave of the coronavirus in September or October. He remarked that coupling it with the influenza vaccination should be considered.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to shifts in other seasonal waves of pathogens. In the summer, pediatric departments were unexpectedly inundated with children suffering from RSV infections. And while the flu season over the past 2 years has been almost absent, the influenza wave may occur significantly earlier than usual this year.

“In Australia, the influenza wave arrived much earlier this year than usual, which may of course also be fruitful for us,” said Dr. Sander. “Perhaps we will also get influenza as early as in September or October. I would then plead for vaccine centers to be allowed to vaccinate against both influenza and COVID-19 at the same time. Maybe then we will also have a reasonable influenza vaccination rate,” he added.

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

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

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Women with type 1 diabetes may need additional glucose after exercise during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, compared with other times, according to a study in nine women.

“We know that exercise is very beneficial for people with type 1 diabetes; we also know that fear of hypoglycemia is a major barrier to exercise in this population,” said Jane E. Yardley, PhD, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, New Orleans. Women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) perceive more barriers, compared with men, she added.

The menstrual cycle could be an additional barrier to exercise for women with T1D because it increases glucose fluctuations that have not been well documented in the literature to date, said Dr. Yardley, of the University of Alberta, Augustana.

The follicular phase of the menstrual cycle lasts from menses to the midcycle, about 14 days later. This is followed by the luteal phase, which lasts until approximately day 28, Dr. Yardley explained. Data on insulin sensitivity have shown that the late luteal phase is associated with “a little less insulin sensitivity” in women with T1D, she noted.

To assess the relationship between menstrual cycle, glucose control, and exercise, Dr. Yardley and colleagues compared the effects of a moderate aerobic exercise on glycemic responses between the early follicular and late luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in nine female participants with T1D.

The exercise involved 45 minutes of aerobic cycling at 50% of predetermined peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) for 45 min. The mean age of the participants was 30.2 years, the mean hemoglobin A1C was 7.4%, and the mean VO2peak was 32.5 mL/kg per min. The women reported regular menstrual cycles, and none were using oral contraceptives.

Blood samples were collected before and immediately after exercise and after an hour of recovery. Participants wore continuous glucose monitors for at least 1 hour before and after exercise.

Menstrual cycle was confirmed via estrogen, estradiol, and progesterone.

Insulin levels varied greatly among the study participants, but the differences were not significant, Dr. Yardley said. Glucose levels consistently decreased during exercise and increased after exercise, she noted.

No significant difference in glucose was observed between the follicular and luteal phases.

However, “this needs to be interpreted in the context of the safety profiles that are in place in our lab,” which include carbohydrate supplements for individuals whose blood glucose levels drop below 4.5 mmol/L, she said.

In the current study, 6 of 9 participants required additional carbohydrates during the luteal phase, but only 1 participant needed additional carbohydrates during the follicular phase, she noted. For this reason, no differences were noted. “We actually prevented changes,” she said.

No significant differences were noted in mean glucose levels or number of hypoglycemic episodes at any of the time points between the two phases.

“One place where we did see a difference was in hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise,” Dr. Yardley said. Level 1 hyperglycemia 24 hours after exercise was significantly more frequent in the follicular phase, compared with the luteal phase (P = .028).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and homogenous population, and more research is needed to interpret the data, said Dr. Yardley.

However, the need for more glucose supplementation to prevent hypoglycemia during the luteal phase suggests a higher hypoglycemic risk associated with aerobic exercise during this time, she said.

In addition, the results suggest that the menstrual cycle should be taken into consideration when female participants are involved in exercise studies, she noted.

Study supports personalized exercise plans

“It is important to evaluate effects of exercise in people with type 1 diabetes and evaluate whether there is a difference those effects in men and women,” said Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., in an interview. “There is also a need to evaluate to what extent the changes in blood glucose patterns in women in response to exercise differ depending on the phase of the ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved in the study.

In the current study, “the researchers observed a decline in glucose during a 45-minute period of moderate aerobic exercise, cycling at 50% VO2peak followed by an increase during a 60-minute recovery period. There was a suggestive finding, in the nine subjects, that more carbohydrate supplementation was needed during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle than during the follicular phase,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “In contrast, the authors reported a significantly increased degree of hyperglycemia during the recovery phase for subjects during the follicular phase. These findings are consistent with and extend several recent studies from Dr. Yardley and coworkers, who have been focused on this area of research,” she said.

“This study provides provocative evidence that glucose responses to aerobic exercise in women may depend on the timing in relationship to their ovarian cycle,” said Dr. Rodbard. “These findings are based on a small group of subjects and were present in some but not all subjects. Clinicians should encourage women to evaluate and record their experiences during and after exercise in terms of need for carbohydrate supplementation for documented or symptomatic hypoglycemia and in terms of glucose changes as recorded using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), both in relation to type of exercise and in relation to time in the menstrual cycle,” she said.

The findings also highlight the importance of individualized therapy that is “based on subjective inputs combined with analysis of CGM data during and following exercise,” said Dr. Rodbard. “It is likely that use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) will be helpful in achieving this level of individualization in view of the wide range of types, intensity, and duration of physical activity and exercise in which people with T1D engage and the myriad factors that can influence the glycemic response,” she said.

Looking ahead, “the authors and others should expand the present series of subjects using aerobic exercise and examine other types of exercise as well,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “It will be important to evaluate the consistency of these changes in glucose patterns within individuals on multiple occasions, and it would be helpful to repeat the studies in women using oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Yardley disclosed research support from Abbott, Dexcom, and LifeScan and disclosed serving on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott Diabetes. Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. She serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.

With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.

Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide “durable variant protection.”

“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”

“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.

Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.

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

Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.

With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.

Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide “durable variant protection.”

“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”

“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.

Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.

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

Ask the sibling of any celebrity and they’ll tell you they don’t get anywhere near the same attention. The same is true for coronaviruses – the one that causes COVID-19 has been in the spotlight for more than 2 years now, while the others at the moment circulate in relative obscurity.

With the knowledge that any of the other coronaviruses could pose a serious future threat, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced plans on June 29 to develop a vaccine that will work against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and the entire class, or family, of related coronaviruses.

Trials in people of this “pan-coronavirus” vaccine are scheduled to start this fall, Reuters reported. The aim of this universal vaccine is to lessen the threat from new variants before they emerge – to provide “durable variant protection.”

“I applaud the sentiment that is long overdue,” said Eric Topol, MD, when asked to comment. “It is crucial that we get ahead of the virus, and the best way is to develop pan-betacoronavirus vaccines that are variant-proof.”

“We had potential to get them into clinical trials many months ago, but this is the first sign it may happen,” said Dr. Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief for Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for health care professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 is not the first troublemaker in the coronavirus family. SARS, a coronavirus that causes acute respiratory syndrome, emerged in late 2002. A decade later, officials sounded the alarm about the coronavirus behind Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The coronavirus family is large, but only seven coronavirus types can infect humans, the CDC reports. Most cause mild to moderate upper respiratory tract infections, although some people can get pneumonia or bronchiolitis.

Unless you’re a virologist, immunologist, or public health official, you may be unaware that coronaviruses are one of the causes of the common cold, for example.

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

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

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

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

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

Zelnorm (tegaserod), an oral short-term treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and constipation (IBS-C), is being removed from the U.S. market effective June 30, according to the manufacturer, Alfasigma.

The Italian pharmaceutical company said the drug is being removed for business purposes, not because of any concern involving its safety or efficacy, nor has it been recalled.

The drug has been through a teeter totter of regulations since its inception.

When it was first introduced in 2002, Zelnorm was a first-of-its-kind drug and was intended to treat all women with IBS-C in the short term. But it was removed from the market 5 years later following concerns about cardiovascular side effects. Clinical data showed an increased incidence of stroke and angina in women taking Zelnorm.

Despite these concerns, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted to reintroduce the drug into the market in 2019, but only for women without a history of heart health problems.

Though Alfasigma will stop making the drug, a company news release said current users can continue use for a while.

“Patients will continue to have access to Zelnorm (tegaserod) for as long as the existing supply of product remains in the trade channel,” Alfasigma said in a news release about the drug removal. The company urged its customers to discuss alternative IBS medications with their doctor.

Zelnorm is a serotonin agonist, meaning it binds to receptors and stops the release of serotonin into the system. These sorts of drugs can decrease the pain associated with IBS and help increase gut motility in order to pass stool. Other drugs besides Zelnorm that use this mechanism include alosetron and cilansetron.

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

Devices that help children control their diabetes and lead fuller lives may also give them contact dermatitis, report the authors of a new study that calls for mandatory labeling of ingredients for allergy patch testing.

“A high share of patients showed positive reactions to isobornyl acrylate adhesive (IBOA) and/or their medical devices (insulin pumps or glucose devices),” the study authors write in Contact Dermatitis. “A third of patients showed positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide (BP),” used in adhesives.

“The presence of additional unidentified allergens cannot be excluded,” they add. “Overall, our experience once more highlights the importance of having access to a full description of the chemical composition of diabetes devices and related medical devices to efficiently manage patients (including children) who experience adverse skin reactions from such devices.”

Lead study author Catarina Alves da Silva, MD, of the department of dermatology and venereology of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, and her colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 15 referred patients younger than 18 years who had type 1 diabetes. The children were patch tested in the university’s dermatology clinic between 2018 and 2020 in a study of skin reactions linked with diabetes devices.
 

Contact dermatitis from device-related allergens may be common

Many children in the study reacted to chemical compounds related to their devices.

• Of the 15 patients, seven showed positive patch test reactions to IBOA, and five showed positive reactions to BP.
• Ten children had positive patch test reactions to materials from glucose sensors and insulin pumps.
• Three showed positive reactions to adhesive remover wipes.
• Five reacted to .

Marcia Hogeling, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health in Santa Monica, Calif., told this news organization that she expected acrylates to cause problems but was surprised that BP caused positive patch test reactions.

BP is known to be a strong irritant but a weak allergen, the authors wrote.

“It was important to identify the allergens in these devices. Hopefully, this information will be used by manufacturers to create safer products for patients,” Dr. Hogeling, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Dr. Hogeling acknowledged that the small sample size is a weakness of the study, although she added that the findings may help providers select devices that do not contain their patients’ contact allergens.

Ryan J. McDonough, DO, a pediatric endocrinologist and the codirector of the Diabetes Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), said in an email that, despite the small sample size, the study “highlights important device-related experiences of those living with type 1 diabetes that clinicians often encounter.

“We often spend considerable time aiding patients and their families in finding ways to mitigate the reactions,” he explained. “Having a broader understanding of these chemical compositions would help clinicians choose the right devices for their patients and prevent and treat these types of reactions.”

Dr. McDonough, who was not involved in the study, noted that the patients were in Denmark, and they were able to easily transition between insulin pumps and glucose monitoring devices.

“In the U.S., it is often more challenging to switch between devices, due to insurance-related concerns.

“The true rates of reaction in the broad type 1 diabetes population are difficult to assess,” Dr. McDonough said. “The study participants were drawn from patients referred to a dermatology clinic for evaluation of reaction. Many patients either don’t develop reactions or are treated for mild symptoms locally by their endocrinologists.

“This study should serve as a call to action for continued improvements in the transparency of the components that make up the devices and adhesives, and it can provide an opportunity to develop additional interventions to prevent these reactions,” he advised.

No information regarding funding for the study was provided. The authors, Dr. Hogeling, and Dr. McDonough reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Devices that help children control their diabetes and lead fuller lives may also give them contact dermatitis, report the authors of a new study that calls for mandatory labeling of ingredients for allergy patch testing.

“A high share of patients showed positive reactions to isobornyl acrylate adhesive (IBOA) and/or their medical devices (insulin pumps or glucose devices),” the study authors write in Contact Dermatitis. “A third of patients showed positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide (BP),” used in adhesives.

“The presence of additional unidentified allergens cannot be excluded,” they add. “Overall, our experience once more highlights the importance of having access to a full description of the chemical composition of diabetes devices and related medical devices to efficiently manage patients (including children) who experience adverse skin reactions from such devices.”

Lead study author Catarina Alves da Silva, MD, of the department of dermatology and venereology of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, and her colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 15 referred patients younger than 18 years who had type 1 diabetes. The children were patch tested in the university’s dermatology clinic between 2018 and 2020 in a study of skin reactions linked with diabetes devices.
 

Contact dermatitis from device-related allergens may be common

Many children in the study reacted to chemical compounds related to their devices.

• Of the 15 patients, seven showed positive patch test reactions to IBOA, and five showed positive reactions to BP.
• Ten children had positive patch test reactions to materials from glucose sensors and insulin pumps.
• Three showed positive reactions to adhesive remover wipes.
• Five reacted to .

Marcia Hogeling, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health in Santa Monica, Calif., told this news organization that she expected acrylates to cause problems but was surprised that BP caused positive patch test reactions.

BP is known to be a strong irritant but a weak allergen, the authors wrote.

“It was important to identify the allergens in these devices. Hopefully, this information will be used by manufacturers to create safer products for patients,” Dr. Hogeling, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Dr. Hogeling acknowledged that the small sample size is a weakness of the study, although she added that the findings may help providers select devices that do not contain their patients’ contact allergens.

Ryan J. McDonough, DO, a pediatric endocrinologist and the codirector of the Diabetes Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), said in an email that, despite the small sample size, the study “highlights important device-related experiences of those living with type 1 diabetes that clinicians often encounter.

“We often spend considerable time aiding patients and their families in finding ways to mitigate the reactions,” he explained. “Having a broader understanding of these chemical compositions would help clinicians choose the right devices for their patients and prevent and treat these types of reactions.”

Dr. McDonough, who was not involved in the study, noted that the patients were in Denmark, and they were able to easily transition between insulin pumps and glucose monitoring devices.

“In the U.S., it is often more challenging to switch between devices, due to insurance-related concerns.

“The true rates of reaction in the broad type 1 diabetes population are difficult to assess,” Dr. McDonough said. “The study participants were drawn from patients referred to a dermatology clinic for evaluation of reaction. Many patients either don’t develop reactions or are treated for mild symptoms locally by their endocrinologists.

“This study should serve as a call to action for continued improvements in the transparency of the components that make up the devices and adhesives, and it can provide an opportunity to develop additional interventions to prevent these reactions,” he advised.

No information regarding funding for the study was provided. The authors, Dr. Hogeling, and Dr. McDonough reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Devices that help children control their diabetes and lead fuller lives may also give them contact dermatitis, report the authors of a new study that calls for mandatory labeling of ingredients for allergy patch testing.

“A high share of patients showed positive reactions to isobornyl acrylate adhesive (IBOA) and/or their medical devices (insulin pumps or glucose devices),” the study authors write in Contact Dermatitis. “A third of patients showed positive reactions to benzoyl peroxide (BP),” used in adhesives.

“The presence of additional unidentified allergens cannot be excluded,” they add. “Overall, our experience once more highlights the importance of having access to a full description of the chemical composition of diabetes devices and related medical devices to efficiently manage patients (including children) who experience adverse skin reactions from such devices.”

Lead study author Catarina Alves da Silva, MD, of the department of dermatology and venereology of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, and her colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 15 referred patients younger than 18 years who had type 1 diabetes. The children were patch tested in the university’s dermatology clinic between 2018 and 2020 in a study of skin reactions linked with diabetes devices.
 

Contact dermatitis from device-related allergens may be common

Many children in the study reacted to chemical compounds related to their devices.

• Of the 15 patients, seven showed positive patch test reactions to IBOA, and five showed positive reactions to BP.
• Ten children had positive patch test reactions to materials from glucose sensors and insulin pumps.
• Three showed positive reactions to adhesive remover wipes.
• Five reacted to .

Marcia Hogeling, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health in Santa Monica, Calif., told this news organization that she expected acrylates to cause problems but was surprised that BP caused positive patch test reactions.

BP is known to be a strong irritant but a weak allergen, the authors wrote.

“It was important to identify the allergens in these devices. Hopefully, this information will be used by manufacturers to create safer products for patients,” Dr. Hogeling, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Dr. Hogeling acknowledged that the small sample size is a weakness of the study, although she added that the findings may help providers select devices that do not contain their patients’ contact allergens.

Ryan J. McDonough, DO, a pediatric endocrinologist and the codirector of the Diabetes Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), said in an email that, despite the small sample size, the study “highlights important device-related experiences of those living with type 1 diabetes that clinicians often encounter.

“We often spend considerable time aiding patients and their families in finding ways to mitigate the reactions,” he explained. “Having a broader understanding of these chemical compositions would help clinicians choose the right devices for their patients and prevent and treat these types of reactions.”

Dr. McDonough, who was not involved in the study, noted that the patients were in Denmark, and they were able to easily transition between insulin pumps and glucose monitoring devices.

“In the U.S., it is often more challenging to switch between devices, due to insurance-related concerns.

“The true rates of reaction in the broad type 1 diabetes population are difficult to assess,” Dr. McDonough said. “The study participants were drawn from patients referred to a dermatology clinic for evaluation of reaction. Many patients either don’t develop reactions or are treated for mild symptoms locally by their endocrinologists.

“This study should serve as a call to action for continued improvements in the transparency of the components that make up the devices and adhesives, and it can provide an opportunity to develop additional interventions to prevent these reactions,” he advised.

No information regarding funding for the study was provided. The authors, Dr. Hogeling, and Dr. McDonough reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nordic walking was significantly better at improving functional capacity than were moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in a single-center randomized controlled trial.

Participants who did Nordic walking saw better improvements in functional capacity, measured via the 6-minute walk test distances, than did individuals doing either of the other exercise strategies (interaction effect, P = .010).

amriphoto/E+/Getty Images

From baseline to 26 weeks, the average changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 55.6 m and 59.9 m for moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, respectively, but 94.2 m in the Nordic walking group, reported Tasuku Terada, PhD, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ontario, and colleagues.

Previous research looked at these results at the end of a 12-week supervised exercise intervention and showed that although all three strategies were safe and had positive effects on physical and mental health in these patients, Nordic walking had a better effect in raising the 6-minute walk test scores than did moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training and HIIT, the researchers noted.

“This study is a follow-up on the previous study to show that Nordic walking had greater sustained effects even after the observation phase,” from 12 to 26 weeks, Dr. Terada said in an interview.

“Exercise is a medicine to improve the health of patients, but unfortunately, sometimes it is not as often utilized,” Dr. Terada told this news organization.

Giving patients additional exercise modalities is beneficial because not everyone likes HIIT workouts or long continuous walking, Dr. Terada said. “So, if that’s the case, we can recommend Nordic walking as another type of exercise and expect a similar or good impact in functional capacity.”

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.

“I think it honestly supports the idea that, as many other studies show, physical activity and exercise improve functional capacity no matter how you measure it and have beneficial effects on mental health and quality of life and particularly depression as well,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, University of Queensland, New Orleans, who coauthored an editorial accompanying the publication, said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to get patients to do the type of exercise that they are going to do. A lot of people ask what’s the best exercise, and the best exercise is one that the person is going to do,” Dr. Lavie said.

Nordic walking is an enhanced form of walking that engages the upper and lower body musculatures, noted Dr. Lavie.

“With regard to Nordic walking, I think that now adds an additional option that many people wouldn’t have thought about. For many of the patients that have issues that are musculoskeletal, issues with posture, gait, or balance, using the poles can be a way to allow them to walk much better and increase their speed, and as they do that, they become fitter,” Dr. Lavie continued.

Moreover, these findings support the use of Nordic walking in cardiac rehabilitation programs, the editorialists noted.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation

The study examined patients with coronary artery disease who underwent cardiac revascularization. They were then referred by their physicians to cardiac rehabilitation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following intervention groups: Nordic walking (n = 30), moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training (n = 27), and HIIT (n = 29) for a 12-week period. There was then an additional 14-week observation period after the exercise program. Mean age was 60 years across the intervention groups.

The research team analyzed the extent of participants’ depression with Beck Depression Inventory–II, quality of life with Short Form–36 and HeartQoL, and functional capacity with a 6-minute walk test. They assessed functional capacity, depression, and quality of life at baseline, 12 weeks, and 26 weeks.

Using linear mixed models with extended measures, the study authors evaluated sustained effects, which were between week 12 and week 26, and prolonged effects, which were between baseline and week 26.

From baseline to 26 weeks, participants saw significantly better outcomes in quality of life, depression symptoms, and 6-minute walk test (P < .05).

Physical quality of life and 6-minute walk test distance rose significantly between weeks 12 and 26 (P < .05).

Notably, at week 26, all training groups achieved the minimal clinical threshold difference of 54 m, although participants in the Nordic walking cohort demonstrated significantly greater improvement in outcomes.

Other data indicated the following:

• From baseline to week 12, physical activity levels rose significantly, and this improvement was sustained through the observation period.
• During the observation period, mental component summary significantly declined while physical component summary outcomes improved.
• After completion of cardiac rehabilitation, functional capacity continued to increase significantly.
• Moderate- to vigorous-intensity continuous training, HIIT, and Nordic walking had positive and significant prolonged effects on depression symptoms and general and disease-specific quality of life, with no differences in the extent of improvements between exercise types.

Some limitations of the study include the fact that women comprised a small portion of the study group, which limits the generalizability of these data, the cohort was recruited from a single medical facility, and there was a short follow-up time, the researchers noted.

“Further research is warranted to investigate the efficacy and integration of Nordic walking into home-based exercise after supervised cardiac rehabilitation for maintenance of physical and mental health,” the editorialists concluded.

Dr. Terada, Dr. Lavie, and Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships.

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