Federal Practitioner

MADRID – Five years on, the addition of the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for women with high-risk hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) early breast cancer continues to show modest but clinically significant benefits, compared with endocrine therapy alone.

Results of a planned 5-year efficacy analysis of the monarchE trial showed that at a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the abemaciclib/endocrine therapy combination was associated with a 7.6% absolute improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) and 6.7% edge in distant relapse–free survival (DRFS), compared with endocrine therapy alone, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, from the Breast Center at Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital in Munich.

“The data are consistent with a carryover effect and further support the addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer,” she said at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
 

High recurrence risk

Although HR+/HER2– breast cancer, the most common subtype of breast cancer, is generally associated with better outcomes than other subtypes, patients with node-positive early disease are at high risk for early recurrence and need treatment intensification, Dr. Harbeck said.

The monarchE trial included two cohorts: a primary cohort consisting of patients deemed at high risk based on clinical pathological features such as the number of involved axillary nodes, grade 3 disease, and tumors 5 cm or larger, and a second cohort of patients with lower disease grade and smaller tumors but with high levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67.

A total of 5,637 patients were randomized to receive either 2 years of abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily plus endocrine therapy, or endocrine therapy alone, followed by 3-8 years of additional endocrine as clinically indicated in each study arm.

An earlier preplanned interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of more than 5,600 patients was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

As that analysis showed, at a median follow-up of 15.5 months abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of IDFS vs. endocrine therapy alone.

At the time, the findings were hailed as practice-changing and, once approved for high-risk HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer, as the new standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Harbeck and colleagues looked at 5-year outcomes from a prespecified analysis, with a data cutoff of July 3, 2023.

All patients originally assigned to abemaciclib are now off the drug, and more than 80% have been followed for a minimum of 2 year since completing therapy with the CDK4/6 inhibitor.
 

Results

At 5 years there were cumulative totals of 407 IDFS events in the combination arm, compared with 585 in the endocrine therapy alone arm, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring abemaciclib (P < .001).

The IDFS benefit with the combination was consistent across most subgroups, including older patients, perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients, those who had received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, all tumor sizes, number of positive lymph nodes, less favorable tumor stage or grade, and order of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor as first drug).

As noted before, DRFS, a secondary endpoint, also favored abemaciclib, with 345 events occurring over 5 years in the combination arm, compared with 501 in the endocrine therapy arm alone. This translated into a HR with the combination of 0.68 (P < .001).

There were fewer deaths in the abemaciclib arm (208 vs. 234), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the combination arm than in the endocrine therapy alone arm in all previous analyses of the trial data.

In the current analysis, “I would say it’s reassuring to see that the SAEs reported in the follow-up period, after the study treatment had been completed, are quite similar between the endocrine therapy alone arm and the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy arm,” Dr. Harbeck said.
 

Changing road map

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, commented that CDK4/6 inhibitors “have changed the road map for treating hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease.”

To put the monarchE results in context, he compared them with those of the NATALEE trial, in which patients were randomized to endocrine therapy with or without the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali). That combination was previously shown to provide a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic breast cancer.

In NATALEE, which included both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with early breast cancer, the absolute difference in 3-year IDFS rates between the combination group and endocrine monotherapy groups was 3.3%.

To determine the ultimate value of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy in early breast cancer, longer follow-up of both trials will be necessary, Dr. Kalinsky said.

“The reason that follow-up is critical for both of these studies is that for this subtype of breast cancer, based upon data including from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Group, we can see approximately 50% of recurrences after the first 5 years, and we think of cytotoxic chemotherapy as benefiting patients within those first 5 years. And while we think of CDK4/6 inhibitors as being cytostatic drugs, we are seeing a carryover effect in which 2 years of abemaciclib is improving outcome at the 5-year landmark,” he said.

Questions that still need to be answered include the optimal duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, whether adjuvant therapy should be resumed when there are signs of renewed proliferation, and whether there would be a benefit to restarting CDK4/6 inhibitors when metastasis occurs.

The monarchE trial was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Co. Dr. Harbeck disclosed research funding and speaker’s bureau activity for Lilly and others, and a consulting or advisory role with Gilead, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Seagen. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed a consulting or advisory role with multiple companies, not including Lilly.

MADRID – Five years on, the addition of the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for women with high-risk hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) early breast cancer continues to show modest but clinically significant benefits, compared with endocrine therapy alone.

Results of a planned 5-year efficacy analysis of the monarchE trial showed that at a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the abemaciclib/endocrine therapy combination was associated with a 7.6% absolute improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) and 6.7% edge in distant relapse–free survival (DRFS), compared with endocrine therapy alone, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, from the Breast Center at Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital in Munich.

“The data are consistent with a carryover effect and further support the addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer,” she said at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
 

High recurrence risk

Although HR+/HER2– breast cancer, the most common subtype of breast cancer, is generally associated with better outcomes than other subtypes, patients with node-positive early disease are at high risk for early recurrence and need treatment intensification, Dr. Harbeck said.

The monarchE trial included two cohorts: a primary cohort consisting of patients deemed at high risk based on clinical pathological features such as the number of involved axillary nodes, grade 3 disease, and tumors 5 cm or larger, and a second cohort of patients with lower disease grade and smaller tumors but with high levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67.

A total of 5,637 patients were randomized to receive either 2 years of abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily plus endocrine therapy, or endocrine therapy alone, followed by 3-8 years of additional endocrine as clinically indicated in each study arm.

An earlier preplanned interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of more than 5,600 patients was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

As that analysis showed, at a median follow-up of 15.5 months abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of IDFS vs. endocrine therapy alone.

At the time, the findings were hailed as practice-changing and, once approved for high-risk HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer, as the new standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Harbeck and colleagues looked at 5-year outcomes from a prespecified analysis, with a data cutoff of July 3, 2023.

All patients originally assigned to abemaciclib are now off the drug, and more than 80% have been followed for a minimum of 2 year since completing therapy with the CDK4/6 inhibitor.
 

Results

At 5 years there were cumulative totals of 407 IDFS events in the combination arm, compared with 585 in the endocrine therapy alone arm, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring abemaciclib (P < .001).

The IDFS benefit with the combination was consistent across most subgroups, including older patients, perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients, those who had received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, all tumor sizes, number of positive lymph nodes, less favorable tumor stage or grade, and order of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor as first drug).

As noted before, DRFS, a secondary endpoint, also favored abemaciclib, with 345 events occurring over 5 years in the combination arm, compared with 501 in the endocrine therapy arm alone. This translated into a HR with the combination of 0.68 (P < .001).

There were fewer deaths in the abemaciclib arm (208 vs. 234), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the combination arm than in the endocrine therapy alone arm in all previous analyses of the trial data.

In the current analysis, “I would say it’s reassuring to see that the SAEs reported in the follow-up period, after the study treatment had been completed, are quite similar between the endocrine therapy alone arm and the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy arm,” Dr. Harbeck said.
 

Changing road map

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, commented that CDK4/6 inhibitors “have changed the road map for treating hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease.”

To put the monarchE results in context, he compared them with those of the NATALEE trial, in which patients were randomized to endocrine therapy with or without the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali). That combination was previously shown to provide a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic breast cancer.

In NATALEE, which included both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with early breast cancer, the absolute difference in 3-year IDFS rates between the combination group and endocrine monotherapy groups was 3.3%.

To determine the ultimate value of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy in early breast cancer, longer follow-up of both trials will be necessary, Dr. Kalinsky said.

“The reason that follow-up is critical for both of these studies is that for this subtype of breast cancer, based upon data including from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Group, we can see approximately 50% of recurrences after the first 5 years, and we think of cytotoxic chemotherapy as benefiting patients within those first 5 years. And while we think of CDK4/6 inhibitors as being cytostatic drugs, we are seeing a carryover effect in which 2 years of abemaciclib is improving outcome at the 5-year landmark,” he said.

Questions that still need to be answered include the optimal duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, whether adjuvant therapy should be resumed when there are signs of renewed proliferation, and whether there would be a benefit to restarting CDK4/6 inhibitors when metastasis occurs.

The monarchE trial was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Co. Dr. Harbeck disclosed research funding and speaker’s bureau activity for Lilly and others, and a consulting or advisory role with Gilead, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Seagen. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed a consulting or advisory role with multiple companies, not including Lilly.

MADRID – Five years on, the addition of the CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy for women with high-risk hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) early breast cancer continues to show modest but clinically significant benefits, compared with endocrine therapy alone.

Results of a planned 5-year efficacy analysis of the monarchE trial showed that at a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the abemaciclib/endocrine therapy combination was associated with a 7.6% absolute improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS) and 6.7% edge in distant relapse–free survival (DRFS), compared with endocrine therapy alone, reported Nadia Harbeck, MD, from the Breast Center at Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital in Munich.

“The data are consistent with a carryover effect and further support the addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to endocrine therapy for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-positive high-risk early breast cancer,” she said at the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.
 

High recurrence risk

Although HR+/HER2– breast cancer, the most common subtype of breast cancer, is generally associated with better outcomes than other subtypes, patients with node-positive early disease are at high risk for early recurrence and need treatment intensification, Dr. Harbeck said.

The monarchE trial included two cohorts: a primary cohort consisting of patients deemed at high risk based on clinical pathological features such as the number of involved axillary nodes, grade 3 disease, and tumors 5 cm or larger, and a second cohort of patients with lower disease grade and smaller tumors but with high levels of the proliferation marker Ki-67.

A total of 5,637 patients were randomized to receive either 2 years of abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily plus endocrine therapy, or endocrine therapy alone, followed by 3-8 years of additional endocrine as clinically indicated in each study arm.

An earlier preplanned interim analysis of the phase 3 trial of more than 5,600 patients was presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020, and simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

As that analysis showed, at a median follow-up of 15.5 months abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy was associated with a 25% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of IDFS vs. endocrine therapy alone.

At the time, the findings were hailed as practice-changing and, once approved for high-risk HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer, as the new standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Harbeck and colleagues looked at 5-year outcomes from a prespecified analysis, with a data cutoff of July 3, 2023.

All patients originally assigned to abemaciclib are now off the drug, and more than 80% have been followed for a minimum of 2 year since completing therapy with the CDK4/6 inhibitor.
 

Results

At 5 years there were cumulative totals of 407 IDFS events in the combination arm, compared with 585 in the endocrine therapy alone arm, a difference that translated into a hazard ratio of 0.68 favoring abemaciclib (P < .001).

The IDFS benefit with the combination was consistent across most subgroups, including older patients, perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients, those who had received prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, all tumor sizes, number of positive lymph nodes, less favorable tumor stage or grade, and order of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor as first drug).

As noted before, DRFS, a secondary endpoint, also favored abemaciclib, with 345 events occurring over 5 years in the combination arm, compared with 501 in the endocrine therapy arm alone. This translated into a HR with the combination of 0.68 (P < .001).

There were fewer deaths in the abemaciclib arm (208 vs. 234), but this difference was not statistically significant.

The proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the combination arm than in the endocrine therapy alone arm in all previous analyses of the trial data.

In the current analysis, “I would say it’s reassuring to see that the SAEs reported in the follow-up period, after the study treatment had been completed, are quite similar between the endocrine therapy alone arm and the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy arm,” Dr. Harbeck said.
 

Changing road map

Invited discussant Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, from the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, commented that CDK4/6 inhibitors “have changed the road map for treating hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative disease.”

To put the monarchE results in context, he compared them with those of the NATALEE trial, in which patients were randomized to endocrine therapy with or without the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali). That combination was previously shown to provide a significant survival advantage for women with metastatic breast cancer.

In NATALEE, which included both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with early breast cancer, the absolute difference in 3-year IDFS rates between the combination group and endocrine monotherapy groups was 3.3%.

To determine the ultimate value of combining a CDK4/6 inhibitor with endocrine therapy in early breast cancer, longer follow-up of both trials will be necessary, Dr. Kalinsky said.

“The reason that follow-up is critical for both of these studies is that for this subtype of breast cancer, based upon data including from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Group, we can see approximately 50% of recurrences after the first 5 years, and we think of cytotoxic chemotherapy as benefiting patients within those first 5 years. And while we think of CDK4/6 inhibitors as being cytostatic drugs, we are seeing a carryover effect in which 2 years of abemaciclib is improving outcome at the 5-year landmark,” he said.

Questions that still need to be answered include the optimal duration of CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, whether adjuvant therapy should be resumed when there are signs of renewed proliferation, and whether there would be a benefit to restarting CDK4/6 inhibitors when metastasis occurs.

The monarchE trial was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Co. Dr. Harbeck disclosed research funding and speaker’s bureau activity for Lilly and others, and a consulting or advisory role with Gilead, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, and Seagen. Dr. Kalinsky disclosed a consulting or advisory role with multiple companies, not including Lilly.

The Food and Drug Administration is considering banning chemicals used in hair straightening products that have been linked to cancer.

The proposal specifies that formaldehyde would be banned, as well as other chemicals that release formaldehyde, such as methylene glycol. Using hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals “is linked to short-term adverse health effects, such as sensitization reactions and breathing problems, and long-term adverse health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers,” the proposal states.

One study published last year showed that repeated use of hair straightening products, also called relaxers, could more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Although that study didn’t find that the uterine cancer risk varied based on a person’s race, the researchers noted that women who are Black are among the most likely to use the products and tend to start using them at younger ages, compared with people of other races and ethnicities.

Hair straightening products have also been linked to elevated risks of hormone-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) applauded the proposed rule in a statement issued jointly on Oct. 6. “The FDA’s proposal to ban these harmful chemicals in hair straighteners and relaxers is a win for public health – especially the health of Black women who are disproportionately put at risk by these products as a result of systemic racism and anti–Black hair sentiment,” Rep. Pressley said The two congresswomen wrote a letter to the FDA earlier this year requesting the topic be investigated.

“Regardless of how we wear our hair, we should be allowed to show up in the world without putting our health at risk. I applaud the FDA for being responsive to our calls and advancing a rule that will help prevent manufacturers from making a profit at the expense of our health,” Rep. Pressley said in the statement. “The administration should finalize this rule without delay.”



A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com

The Food and Drug Administration is considering banning chemicals used in hair straightening products that have been linked to cancer.

The proposal specifies that formaldehyde would be banned, as well as other chemicals that release formaldehyde, such as methylene glycol. Using hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals “is linked to short-term adverse health effects, such as sensitization reactions and breathing problems, and long-term adverse health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers,” the proposal states.

One study published last year showed that repeated use of hair straightening products, also called relaxers, could more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Although that study didn’t find that the uterine cancer risk varied based on a person’s race, the researchers noted that women who are Black are among the most likely to use the products and tend to start using them at younger ages, compared with people of other races and ethnicities.

Hair straightening products have also been linked to elevated risks of hormone-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) applauded the proposed rule in a statement issued jointly on Oct. 6. “The FDA’s proposal to ban these harmful chemicals in hair straighteners and relaxers is a win for public health – especially the health of Black women who are disproportionately put at risk by these products as a result of systemic racism and anti–Black hair sentiment,” Rep. Pressley said The two congresswomen wrote a letter to the FDA earlier this year requesting the topic be investigated.

“Regardless of how we wear our hair, we should be allowed to show up in the world without putting our health at risk. I applaud the FDA for being responsive to our calls and advancing a rule that will help prevent manufacturers from making a profit at the expense of our health,” Rep. Pressley said in the statement. “The administration should finalize this rule without delay.”



A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com

The Food and Drug Administration is considering banning chemicals used in hair straightening products that have been linked to cancer.

The proposal specifies that formaldehyde would be banned, as well as other chemicals that release formaldehyde, such as methylene glycol. Using hair smoothing products containing formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals “is linked to short-term adverse health effects, such as sensitization reactions and breathing problems, and long-term adverse health effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers,” the proposal states.

One study published last year showed that repeated use of hair straightening products, also called relaxers, could more than double the risk of uterine cancer. Although that study didn’t find that the uterine cancer risk varied based on a person’s race, the researchers noted that women who are Black are among the most likely to use the products and tend to start using them at younger ages, compared with people of other races and ethnicities.

Hair straightening products have also been linked to elevated risks of hormone-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) applauded the proposed rule in a statement issued jointly on Oct. 6. “The FDA’s proposal to ban these harmful chemicals in hair straighteners and relaxers is a win for public health – especially the health of Black women who are disproportionately put at risk by these products as a result of systemic racism and anti–Black hair sentiment,” Rep. Pressley said The two congresswomen wrote a letter to the FDA earlier this year requesting the topic be investigated.

“Regardless of how we wear our hair, we should be allowed to show up in the world without putting our health at risk. I applaud the FDA for being responsive to our calls and advancing a rule that will help prevent manufacturers from making a profit at the expense of our health,” Rep. Pressley said in the statement. “The administration should finalize this rule without delay.”



A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com

TOPLINE:

Climbing more than five flights of stairs daily is associated with a reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) of about 20%, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The prospective cohort study used data from 458,860 adults in the UK Biobank cohort who were 38-73 years old at baseline (2006-2010).
• Information about stair climbing, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors was collected at baseline and 5 years later.
• Cases of ASCVD – defined as coronary artery disease (CAD), ischemic stroke, or acute complications – were identified via hospital records and death registry.
• Associations between stair climbing and ASCVD were examined as hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards model. Analyses were stratified by susceptibility to ASCVD based on family history, genetic risk, and established risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 39,043 ASCVD, 30,718 CAD, and 10,521 ischemic stroke cases were recorded during a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
• Compared with no-stair climbing, climbing 6-10 flights of stairs daily was associated with a 7% lower ASCVD risk (multivariable-adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.96) and climbing 16-20 flights daily was associated with a 10% lower risk (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
• The benefits plateaued at 20 flights daily; comparable results were obtained for CAD and ischemic stroke; the protective effect of stair climbing was attenuated by increasing levels of disease susceptibility.
• Adults who stopped climbing stairs daily during the study had a 32% higher risk of ASCVD (HR, 1.32; 95% CI,1.06-1.65), compared with peers who never reported stair climbing.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the potential advantages of stair climbing as a primary preventive measure for ASCVD in the general population. Short bursts of high-intensity stair climbing are a time-efficient way to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and lipid profile, especially among those unable to achieve the current physical activity recommendations,” study author Lu Qi, with Tulane University, New Orleans, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Atherosclerosis.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design limits causal inferences. Stair climbing was self-reported via questionnaires and recall bias is a possibility. The UK Biobank participants do not represent the entire population of the country, with a healthy volunteer selection bias previously reported.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Climbing more than five flights of stairs daily is associated with a reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) of about 20%, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The prospective cohort study used data from 458,860 adults in the UK Biobank cohort who were 38-73 years old at baseline (2006-2010).
• Information about stair climbing, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors was collected at baseline and 5 years later.
• Cases of ASCVD – defined as coronary artery disease (CAD), ischemic stroke, or acute complications – were identified via hospital records and death registry.
• Associations between stair climbing and ASCVD were examined as hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards model. Analyses were stratified by susceptibility to ASCVD based on family history, genetic risk, and established risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 39,043 ASCVD, 30,718 CAD, and 10,521 ischemic stroke cases were recorded during a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
• Compared with no-stair climbing, climbing 6-10 flights of stairs daily was associated with a 7% lower ASCVD risk (multivariable-adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.96) and climbing 16-20 flights daily was associated with a 10% lower risk (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
• The benefits plateaued at 20 flights daily; comparable results were obtained for CAD and ischemic stroke; the protective effect of stair climbing was attenuated by increasing levels of disease susceptibility.
• Adults who stopped climbing stairs daily during the study had a 32% higher risk of ASCVD (HR, 1.32; 95% CI,1.06-1.65), compared with peers who never reported stair climbing.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the potential advantages of stair climbing as a primary preventive measure for ASCVD in the general population. Short bursts of high-intensity stair climbing are a time-efficient way to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and lipid profile, especially among those unable to achieve the current physical activity recommendations,” study author Lu Qi, with Tulane University, New Orleans, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Atherosclerosis.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design limits causal inferences. Stair climbing was self-reported via questionnaires and recall bias is a possibility. The UK Biobank participants do not represent the entire population of the country, with a healthy volunteer selection bias previously reported.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Climbing more than five flights of stairs daily is associated with a reduced risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) of about 20%, new observational data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The prospective cohort study used data from 458,860 adults in the UK Biobank cohort who were 38-73 years old at baseline (2006-2010).
• Information about stair climbing, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors was collected at baseline and 5 years later.
• Cases of ASCVD – defined as coronary artery disease (CAD), ischemic stroke, or acute complications – were identified via hospital records and death registry.
• Associations between stair climbing and ASCVD were examined as hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards model. Analyses were stratified by susceptibility to ASCVD based on family history, genetic risk, and established risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 39,043 ASCVD, 30,718 CAD, and 10,521 ischemic stroke cases were recorded during a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
• Compared with no-stair climbing, climbing 6-10 flights of stairs daily was associated with a 7% lower ASCVD risk (multivariable-adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.96) and climbing 16-20 flights daily was associated with a 10% lower risk (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
• The benefits plateaued at 20 flights daily; comparable results were obtained for CAD and ischemic stroke; the protective effect of stair climbing was attenuated by increasing levels of disease susceptibility.
• Adults who stopped climbing stairs daily during the study had a 32% higher risk of ASCVD (HR, 1.32; 95% CI,1.06-1.65), compared with peers who never reported stair climbing.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the potential advantages of stair climbing as a primary preventive measure for ASCVD in the general population. Short bursts of high-intensity stair climbing are a time-efficient way to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and lipid profile, especially among those unable to achieve the current physical activity recommendations,” study author Lu Qi, with Tulane University, New Orleans, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Atherosclerosis.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design limits causal inferences. Stair climbing was self-reported via questionnaires and recall bias is a possibility. The UK Biobank participants do not represent the entire population of the country, with a healthy volunteer selection bias previously reported.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked in men with increased incidence of urinary retention, urinary tract infection (UTI), and blood in the urine, a new study finds.

Authors of the study, led by Alex Qinyang Liu, of S.H. Ho Urology Centre, at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, highlighted the clinical implications.

“Clinicians should be aware of the significantly higher incidence of LUTS [lower urinary tract symptoms] complications with COVID-19 in this patient group and understand that these urological manifestations can occur regardless of COVID-19 severity,” the authors wrote.

Findings were published online in the Journal of Internal Medicine.

“This is the largest study demonstrating the detrimental urological effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors wrote. They explained that current literature has included only small case series and observational studies assessing the connection between COVID-19 and male LUTS.
 

Nearly 18,000 patients in study

Included in this study were all male patients who used the public health care system in Hong Kong who received alpha-blocker monotherapy for LUTS from 2021 to 2022. After propensity score matching, 17,986 patients were included. Half had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 8,993).

The retrospective study compared urologic outcomes, including male benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) complications, and changes in medical treatment in the two groups. They compared male patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were taking baseline alpha blocker monotherapy for LUTS with a control group who had no SARS-CoV-2 infection.

They found that, compared with controls, the SARS-CoV-2–infected group had significantly higher incidence of retention of urine (4.55% vs. 0.86%, P < .001), hematuria (1.36% vs. 0.41%, P < .001), clinical UTI (4.31% vs. 1.49%, P < .001), culture-proven bacteriuria (9.02% vs. 1.97%, P < .001), and addition of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (0.50% vs. 0.02%, P < .001).
 

Similar side effects even with asymptomatic infection

The researchers pointed out that similar incidence of retention of urine, hematuria, and addition of medication were seen even when patients had asymptomatic infection.

They added that their findings have biological plausibility because the coexpression of the proteins ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the prostate makes it a target for SARS-CoV-2, which leads to inflammation and may help explain the primary outcomes.

“Given the high infectivity and unprecedented scale of the COVID-19 pandemic, these urological symptoms and complications represent a significant clinical burden that clinicians and urologists should be aware of,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that the prevalence of BPH and LUTS rises with age and are among the most common urologic conditions affecting older men. “Incidentally, male patients of advanced age are also more significantly affected by COVID-19.”

The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AT UEG WEEK 2023

COPENHAGEN – Risankizumab shows noninferiority for clinical remission at week 24, and superiority of endoscopic remission at week 48 when compared with ustekinumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD) who have failed one or more anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, according to the results of the phase 3 SEQUENCE trial.

Secondary endpoints – presented for the first time at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2023 – also showed superiority of risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie), an interleulin-23 inhibitor, over ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, for clinical remission at week 48 (60.8% vs. 40.8%) and a statistically significant endoscopic response also favoring risankizumab at weeks 24 and 48.

“With endoscopic remission we see that with a single agent we have doubled the endoscopic remission rate by moving from 16% to 31% with risankizumab [at week 48],” said Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease at Nancy University Hospital, France. “Superiority for sure was met.”

“This sort of thing happens once in your career,” noted Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who presented the results of the study at the meeting. “It’s totally amazing that everything you see here was in favor of risankizumab.

“Already we see the efficacy signal in the proportion of premature discontinuations at 2% vs. 13% due to lack of efficacy [in risankizumab and ustekinumab, respectively],” he said. “This is due to drug failure.”

Risankizumab is an IL-23 inhibitor that selectively blocks the cytokine IL-23, thought to be linked to a number of chronic immune-mediated diseases, by binding to its p19 subunit. It is the first IL-23 inhibitor to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 for moderately to severely active CD based on data from the ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY trials.

Risankizumab and ustekinumab head-to-head

The phase 3, open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial evaluated risankizumab vs. ustekinumab through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active CD.

Participants were required to have a CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 at baseline, a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of 6 or more for ileocolonic or colonic disease (and of 4 or more for isolated ileal disease), excluding the presence of a narrowing component, plus an average daily stool frequency of four or more and/or average daily abdominal pain score of 2 or more. They were also required to have previously failed one or more anti-TNF therapies.

Randomization was stratified by the number of anti-TNF therapies failed (one or more than one), and steroid use at baseline; steroids were then tapered from week 2. Two primary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 24 (defined as CDAI < 150, noninferiority margin within 10% of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in 50% of participants), and also endoscopic remission (SES-CD of 4 or less, and at least a 2-point reduction vs. baseline and no subscore greater than 1 in any individual component) at week 48 demonstrating superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab.

Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at week 48, endoscopic response at weeks 48 and 24, steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 (all tested for superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab).

Intravenous risankizumab at 600 mg was given at weeks 0, 4 , and 8 followed by subcutaneous risankizumab at a 360-mg maintenance dose every 8 weeks through week 48 (n = 255). Participants who completed the week-48 visit continued on subcutaneous risankizumab for up to an additional 220 weeks. Ustekinumab was given as a weight-based, intravenous induction dose at week 0 followed by a 90-mg subcutaneous dose every 8 weeks, starting at week 8 through week 48 (n = 265). Participants received open-label drug administration but efficacy assessment was blinded.

Superiority of risankizumab

Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).

Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.

In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.

Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.

“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”

Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.

These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.

No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.

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

AT UEG WEEK 2023

COPENHAGEN – Risankizumab shows noninferiority for clinical remission at week 24, and superiority of endoscopic remission at week 48 when compared with ustekinumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD) who have failed one or more anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, according to the results of the phase 3 SEQUENCE trial.

Secondary endpoints – presented for the first time at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2023 – also showed superiority of risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie), an interleulin-23 inhibitor, over ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, for clinical remission at week 48 (60.8% vs. 40.8%) and a statistically significant endoscopic response also favoring risankizumab at weeks 24 and 48.

“With endoscopic remission we see that with a single agent we have doubled the endoscopic remission rate by moving from 16% to 31% with risankizumab [at week 48],” said Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease at Nancy University Hospital, France. “Superiority for sure was met.”

“This sort of thing happens once in your career,” noted Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who presented the results of the study at the meeting. “It’s totally amazing that everything you see here was in favor of risankizumab.

“Already we see the efficacy signal in the proportion of premature discontinuations at 2% vs. 13% due to lack of efficacy [in risankizumab and ustekinumab, respectively],” he said. “This is due to drug failure.”

Risankizumab is an IL-23 inhibitor that selectively blocks the cytokine IL-23, thought to be linked to a number of chronic immune-mediated diseases, by binding to its p19 subunit. It is the first IL-23 inhibitor to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 for moderately to severely active CD based on data from the ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY trials.

Risankizumab and ustekinumab head-to-head

The phase 3, open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial evaluated risankizumab vs. ustekinumab through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active CD.

Participants were required to have a CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 at baseline, a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of 6 or more for ileocolonic or colonic disease (and of 4 or more for isolated ileal disease), excluding the presence of a narrowing component, plus an average daily stool frequency of four or more and/or average daily abdominal pain score of 2 or more. They were also required to have previously failed one or more anti-TNF therapies.

Randomization was stratified by the number of anti-TNF therapies failed (one or more than one), and steroid use at baseline; steroids were then tapered from week 2. Two primary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 24 (defined as CDAI < 150, noninferiority margin within 10% of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in 50% of participants), and also endoscopic remission (SES-CD of 4 or less, and at least a 2-point reduction vs. baseline and no subscore greater than 1 in any individual component) at week 48 demonstrating superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab.

Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at week 48, endoscopic response at weeks 48 and 24, steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 (all tested for superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab).

Intravenous risankizumab at 600 mg was given at weeks 0, 4 , and 8 followed by subcutaneous risankizumab at a 360-mg maintenance dose every 8 weeks through week 48 (n = 255). Participants who completed the week-48 visit continued on subcutaneous risankizumab for up to an additional 220 weeks. Ustekinumab was given as a weight-based, intravenous induction dose at week 0 followed by a 90-mg subcutaneous dose every 8 weeks, starting at week 8 through week 48 (n = 265). Participants received open-label drug administration but efficacy assessment was blinded.

Superiority of risankizumab

Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).

Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.

In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.

Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.

“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”

Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.

These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.

No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.

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

AT UEG WEEK 2023

COPENHAGEN – Risankizumab shows noninferiority for clinical remission at week 24, and superiority of endoscopic remission at week 48 when compared with ustekinumab in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD) who have failed one or more anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies, according to the results of the phase 3 SEQUENCE trial.

Secondary endpoints – presented for the first time at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2023 – also showed superiority of risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie), an interleulin-23 inhibitor, over ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, for clinical remission at week 48 (60.8% vs. 40.8%) and a statistically significant endoscopic response also favoring risankizumab at weeks 24 and 48.

“With endoscopic remission we see that with a single agent we have doubled the endoscopic remission rate by moving from 16% to 31% with risankizumab [at week 48],” said Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease at Nancy University Hospital, France. “Superiority for sure was met.”

“This sort of thing happens once in your career,” noted Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet, who presented the results of the study at the meeting. “It’s totally amazing that everything you see here was in favor of risankizumab.

“Already we see the efficacy signal in the proportion of premature discontinuations at 2% vs. 13% due to lack of efficacy [in risankizumab and ustekinumab, respectively],” he said. “This is due to drug failure.”

Risankizumab is an IL-23 inhibitor that selectively blocks the cytokine IL-23, thought to be linked to a number of chronic immune-mediated diseases, by binding to its p19 subunit. It is the first IL-23 inhibitor to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 for moderately to severely active CD based on data from the ADVANCE, MOTIVATE, and FORTIFY trials.

Risankizumab and ustekinumab head-to-head

The phase 3, open-label, multicenter, randomized, clinical trial evaluated risankizumab vs. ustekinumab through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active CD.

Participants were required to have a CD Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 to 450 at baseline, a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) of 6 or more for ileocolonic or colonic disease (and of 4 or more for isolated ileal disease), excluding the presence of a narrowing component, plus an average daily stool frequency of four or more and/or average daily abdominal pain score of 2 or more. They were also required to have previously failed one or more anti-TNF therapies.

Randomization was stratified by the number of anti-TNF therapies failed (one or more than one), and steroid use at baseline; steroids were then tapered from week 2. Two primary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 24 (defined as CDAI < 150, noninferiority margin within 10% of risankizumab vs ustekinumab in 50% of participants), and also endoscopic remission (SES-CD of 4 or less, and at least a 2-point reduction vs. baseline and no subscore greater than 1 in any individual component) at week 48 demonstrating superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab.

Secondary endpoints included clinical remission at week 48, endoscopic response at weeks 48 and 24, steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 (all tested for superiority of risankizumab vs ustekinumab).

Intravenous risankizumab at 600 mg was given at weeks 0, 4 , and 8 followed by subcutaneous risankizumab at a 360-mg maintenance dose every 8 weeks through week 48 (n = 255). Participants who completed the week-48 visit continued on subcutaneous risankizumab for up to an additional 220 weeks. Ustekinumab was given as a weight-based, intravenous induction dose at week 0 followed by a 90-mg subcutaneous dose every 8 weeks, starting at week 8 through week 48 (n = 265). Participants received open-label drug administration but efficacy assessment was blinded.

Superiority of risankizumab

Both primary endpoints were met. For clinical remission at week 24, in half of the patients enrolled, rates were 58.6% (75/128) for risankizumab and 39.5% (54/137) for ustekinumab, for a difference of 18.4% [95% confidence interval, 6.6-30.3], meaning that noninferiority was met within the predefined margin of 10%. The second primary endpoint of endoscopic remission at week 48 showed rates of 31.8% (81/255) for risankizumab and 16.2% (43/265) for ustekinumab (P < .0001 for superiority).

Risankizumab was found to be superior to ustekinumab for all secondary endpoints (all with P < .0001). Steroid-free endoscopic remission at week 48 showed a 16% difference, and steroid-free clinical remission at week 48 showed a 20% difference – both in favor of risankizumab.

In addition, more participants on risankizumab completed the study (89.4%) than those on ustekinumab (74.0%), Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet reported.

Adverse event rates (events per 100 person-years) were comparable between the two drugs at 341.2 for risankizumab and 282.7 for ustekinumab. For risankizumab, no new safety risks were observed, and those recorded were consistent with the known safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred in 10% of risankizumab-treated patients, and 17% of ustekinumab-treated patients.

“We know the safety of IL-23 inhibitors is good,” said Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet. “If we look at all adverse events there was no difference across arms, and in terms of serious adverse events, it was in favor of risankizumab because a CD flare is considered a serious adverse event.”

Session comoderator, Alessandro Armuzzi, MD, head of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan, commented on the findings. “The results look in favor of risankizumab – all the endpoints were met, not only the co-endpoints but also the secondary endpoints too,” he said.

These results, showing a preference for risankizumab, have value in helping clinicians with the sequence of therapies when patients with Crohn’s disease have failed one or more TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Armuzzi.

No funding for this study was disclosed. Dr. Peyrin-Biroulet has disclosed receiving fees from Galapagos, AbbVie, Janssen, Genentech, Alimentiv, Ferring, Tillots, Celltrion, Takeda, Pfizer, Index, Sandoz, Celgene, Biogen, SamsungBioepis, Inotrem, Allergan, MSD, Roche, Arena, Gilead, Amgen, BMS, Vifor, Norgine, Mylan, Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, OSEImmunotherapeutics, Enthera, Theravance, Pandion, Gossamer, Viatris, ThermoFisher, ONOPharma, Mopac, Cytoki, Morphic, Prometheus, and Applied MolecularTransport. Dr. Armuzzi disclosed consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Nestlé, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, and Tillots Pharma; speaker’s fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lionhealth, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, and Takeda; and research grants from MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, and Biogen.

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

For women who are obese, daily life is wrought with landmines. Whether it’s the challenges of air travel because plane seats are too small, the need to shield themselves from the world’s discriminating eyes, or the great lengths many will go to achieve better health and the promise of longevity, navigating life as an obese person requires a thick skin.

So, it’s no wonder so many are willing to pay more than $1,000 a month out of pocket to get their hands on drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). The benefits of these drugs, which are part of a new class called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, include significant and rapid weight loss, blood sugar control, and improved life quality; they are unprecedented in a setting where surgery has long been considered the most effective long-term option.

On the flip side, the desire for rapid weight loss and better blood sugar control also comes with an unexpected cost. Many women living with obesity who take oral contraceptives are unaware that these drugs – especially Mounjaro – can interfere with the absorption of birth control pills and how well they work, making an unintended pregnancy more likely.

Neel Shah, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said he has had several patients become pregnant without intending to. 

“It was when Mounjaro came out on the market when we started using it,” he said of the drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for type 2 diabetes in 2022. “It [the warning] was in the product insert, but clinically speaking, I don’t know if it was at the top of providers’ minds when they were prescribing Mounjaro.”

When asked if he believed that we were going to be seeing a significant increase in so-called Mounjaro babies, Dr. Shah was sure in his response. 

“Absolutely. We will because the sheer volume [of patients] will increase,” he said.
 

It’s all in the gut

One of the ways that drugs like Mounjaro work is by delaying the time that it takes for food to move from the stomach to the small intestine. Although data are still evolving, it is believed that this process – delayed gastric emptying – may affect the absorption of birth control pills. 

Dr. Shah said another theory is that vomiting, which is a common side effect of these types of drugs, also affects the pills’ ability to prevent pregnancy. 

And “there’s a prolonged period of ramping up the dose because of the GI side effects,” said Pinar Kodaman, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist and assistant professor of gynecology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. 

“Initially, at the lowest dose, there may not be a lot of potential effect on absorption and gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes more common, and it can cause diarrhea, which is another condition that can affect the absorption of any medication,” she said.
 

Unanticipated outcomes, extra prevention

Roughly 42% of women in the United States are obese, 40% of whom are between the ages of 20 and 39. Although these new drugs can improve fertility outcomes for women who are obese (especially those with polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS), only one – Mounjaro – currently carries a warning about birth control pill effectiveness on its label. Unfortunately, it appears that some doctors are unaware or not counseling patients about this risk, and the data are unclear about whether other drugs in this class, like Ozempic and Wegovy, have the same risks. 

“To date, it hasn’t been a typical thing that we counsel about,” said Dr. Kodaman. “It’s all fairly new, but when we have patients on birth control pills, we do review other medications that they are on because some can affect efficacy, and it’s something to keep in mind.”

It’s also unclear if other forms of birth control – for example, birth control patches that deliver through the skin – might carry similar pregnancy risks. Dr. Shah said some of his patients who became pregnant without intending to were using these patches. This raises even more questions, since they deliver drugs through the skin directly into the bloodstream and not through the GI system. 

What can women do to help ensure that they don’t become pregnant while using these drugs? 

“I really think that if patients want to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy, that as soon as they start the GLP receptor agonists, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use condoms, because the onset of action is pretty quick,” said Dr. Kodaman, noting also that “at the lowest dose there may not be a lot of potential effect on gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes much more common or can cause diarrhea.” 

Dr. Shah said that in his practice he’s “been telling patients to add barrier contraception” 4 weeks before they start their first dose “and at any dose adjustment.”

Zoobia Chaudhry, an obesity medicine doctor and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, recommends that “patients just make sure that the injection and medication that they take are at least 1 hour apart.”

“Most of the time, patients do take birth control before bedtime, so if the two are spaced, it should be OK,” she said.

Another option is for women to speak to their doctors about other contraceptive options like IUDs or implantable rods, where gastric absorption is not going to be an issue. 

“There’s very little research on this class of drugs,” said Emily Goodstein, a 40-year-old small-business owner in Washington, who recently switched from Ozempic to Mounjaro. “Being a person who lives in a larger body is such a horrifying experience because of the way that the world discriminates against you.”

She appreciates the feeling of being proactive that these new drugs grant. It has “opened up a bunch of opportunities for me to be seen as a full individual by the medical establishment,” she said. “I was willing to take the risk, knowing that I would be on these drugs for the rest of my life.”

In addition to being what Dr. Goodstein refers to as a guinea pig, she said she made sure that her primary care doctor was aware that she was not trying or planning to become pregnant again. (She has a 3-year-old child.) Still, her doctor mentioned only the most common side effects linked to these drugs, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and did not mention the risk of pregnancy.

“Folks are really not talking about the reproductive implications,” she said, referring to members of a Facebook group on these drugs that she belongs to. 

Like patients themselves, many doctors are just beginning to get their arms around these agents. “Awareness, education, provider involvement, and having a multidisciplinary team could help patients achieve the goals that they set out for themselves,” said Dr. Shah. 

Clear conversations are key.

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

For women who are obese, daily life is wrought with landmines. Whether it’s the challenges of air travel because plane seats are too small, the need to shield themselves from the world’s discriminating eyes, or the great lengths many will go to achieve better health and the promise of longevity, navigating life as an obese person requires a thick skin.

So, it’s no wonder so many are willing to pay more than $1,000 a month out of pocket to get their hands on drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). The benefits of these drugs, which are part of a new class called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, include significant and rapid weight loss, blood sugar control, and improved life quality; they are unprecedented in a setting where surgery has long been considered the most effective long-term option.

On the flip side, the desire for rapid weight loss and better blood sugar control also comes with an unexpected cost. Many women living with obesity who take oral contraceptives are unaware that these drugs – especially Mounjaro – can interfere with the absorption of birth control pills and how well they work, making an unintended pregnancy more likely.

Neel Shah, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said he has had several patients become pregnant without intending to. 

“It was when Mounjaro came out on the market when we started using it,” he said of the drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for type 2 diabetes in 2022. “It [the warning] was in the product insert, but clinically speaking, I don’t know if it was at the top of providers’ minds when they were prescribing Mounjaro.”

When asked if he believed that we were going to be seeing a significant increase in so-called Mounjaro babies, Dr. Shah was sure in his response. 

“Absolutely. We will because the sheer volume [of patients] will increase,” he said.
 

It’s all in the gut

One of the ways that drugs like Mounjaro work is by delaying the time that it takes for food to move from the stomach to the small intestine. Although data are still evolving, it is believed that this process – delayed gastric emptying – may affect the absorption of birth control pills. 

Dr. Shah said another theory is that vomiting, which is a common side effect of these types of drugs, also affects the pills’ ability to prevent pregnancy. 

And “there’s a prolonged period of ramping up the dose because of the GI side effects,” said Pinar Kodaman, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist and assistant professor of gynecology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. 

“Initially, at the lowest dose, there may not be a lot of potential effect on absorption and gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes more common, and it can cause diarrhea, which is another condition that can affect the absorption of any medication,” she said.
 

Unanticipated outcomes, extra prevention

Roughly 42% of women in the United States are obese, 40% of whom are between the ages of 20 and 39. Although these new drugs can improve fertility outcomes for women who are obese (especially those with polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS), only one – Mounjaro – currently carries a warning about birth control pill effectiveness on its label. Unfortunately, it appears that some doctors are unaware or not counseling patients about this risk, and the data are unclear about whether other drugs in this class, like Ozempic and Wegovy, have the same risks. 

“To date, it hasn’t been a typical thing that we counsel about,” said Dr. Kodaman. “It’s all fairly new, but when we have patients on birth control pills, we do review other medications that they are on because some can affect efficacy, and it’s something to keep in mind.”

It’s also unclear if other forms of birth control – for example, birth control patches that deliver through the skin – might carry similar pregnancy risks. Dr. Shah said some of his patients who became pregnant without intending to were using these patches. This raises even more questions, since they deliver drugs through the skin directly into the bloodstream and not through the GI system. 

What can women do to help ensure that they don’t become pregnant while using these drugs? 

“I really think that if patients want to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy, that as soon as they start the GLP receptor agonists, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use condoms, because the onset of action is pretty quick,” said Dr. Kodaman, noting also that “at the lowest dose there may not be a lot of potential effect on gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes much more common or can cause diarrhea.” 

Dr. Shah said that in his practice he’s “been telling patients to add barrier contraception” 4 weeks before they start their first dose “and at any dose adjustment.”

Zoobia Chaudhry, an obesity medicine doctor and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, recommends that “patients just make sure that the injection and medication that they take are at least 1 hour apart.”

“Most of the time, patients do take birth control before bedtime, so if the two are spaced, it should be OK,” she said.

Another option is for women to speak to their doctors about other contraceptive options like IUDs or implantable rods, where gastric absorption is not going to be an issue. 

“There’s very little research on this class of drugs,” said Emily Goodstein, a 40-year-old small-business owner in Washington, who recently switched from Ozempic to Mounjaro. “Being a person who lives in a larger body is such a horrifying experience because of the way that the world discriminates against you.”

She appreciates the feeling of being proactive that these new drugs grant. It has “opened up a bunch of opportunities for me to be seen as a full individual by the medical establishment,” she said. “I was willing to take the risk, knowing that I would be on these drugs for the rest of my life.”

In addition to being what Dr. Goodstein refers to as a guinea pig, she said she made sure that her primary care doctor was aware that she was not trying or planning to become pregnant again. (She has a 3-year-old child.) Still, her doctor mentioned only the most common side effects linked to these drugs, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and did not mention the risk of pregnancy.

“Folks are really not talking about the reproductive implications,” she said, referring to members of a Facebook group on these drugs that she belongs to. 

Like patients themselves, many doctors are just beginning to get their arms around these agents. “Awareness, education, provider involvement, and having a multidisciplinary team could help patients achieve the goals that they set out for themselves,” said Dr. Shah. 

Clear conversations are key.

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

For women who are obese, daily life is wrought with landmines. Whether it’s the challenges of air travel because plane seats are too small, the need to shield themselves from the world’s discriminating eyes, or the great lengths many will go to achieve better health and the promise of longevity, navigating life as an obese person requires a thick skin.

So, it’s no wonder so many are willing to pay more than $1,000 a month out of pocket to get their hands on drugs like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) or tirzepatide (Mounjaro). The benefits of these drugs, which are part of a new class called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, include significant and rapid weight loss, blood sugar control, and improved life quality; they are unprecedented in a setting where surgery has long been considered the most effective long-term option.

On the flip side, the desire for rapid weight loss and better blood sugar control also comes with an unexpected cost. Many women living with obesity who take oral contraceptives are unaware that these drugs – especially Mounjaro – can interfere with the absorption of birth control pills and how well they work, making an unintended pregnancy more likely.

Neel Shah, MD, an endocrinologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said he has had several patients become pregnant without intending to. 

“It was when Mounjaro came out on the market when we started using it,” he said of the drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for type 2 diabetes in 2022. “It [the warning] was in the product insert, but clinically speaking, I don’t know if it was at the top of providers’ minds when they were prescribing Mounjaro.”

When asked if he believed that we were going to be seeing a significant increase in so-called Mounjaro babies, Dr. Shah was sure in his response. 

“Absolutely. We will because the sheer volume [of patients] will increase,” he said.
 

It’s all in the gut

One of the ways that drugs like Mounjaro work is by delaying the time that it takes for food to move from the stomach to the small intestine. Although data are still evolving, it is believed that this process – delayed gastric emptying – may affect the absorption of birth control pills. 

Dr. Shah said another theory is that vomiting, which is a common side effect of these types of drugs, also affects the pills’ ability to prevent pregnancy. 

And “there’s a prolonged period of ramping up the dose because of the GI side effects,” said Pinar Kodaman, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist and assistant professor of gynecology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. 

“Initially, at the lowest dose, there may not be a lot of potential effect on absorption and gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes more common, and it can cause diarrhea, which is another condition that can affect the absorption of any medication,” she said.
 

Unanticipated outcomes, extra prevention

Roughly 42% of women in the United States are obese, 40% of whom are between the ages of 20 and 39. Although these new drugs can improve fertility outcomes for women who are obese (especially those with polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS), only one – Mounjaro – currently carries a warning about birth control pill effectiveness on its label. Unfortunately, it appears that some doctors are unaware or not counseling patients about this risk, and the data are unclear about whether other drugs in this class, like Ozempic and Wegovy, have the same risks. 

“To date, it hasn’t been a typical thing that we counsel about,” said Dr. Kodaman. “It’s all fairly new, but when we have patients on birth control pills, we do review other medications that they are on because some can affect efficacy, and it’s something to keep in mind.”

It’s also unclear if other forms of birth control – for example, birth control patches that deliver through the skin – might carry similar pregnancy risks. Dr. Shah said some of his patients who became pregnant without intending to were using these patches. This raises even more questions, since they deliver drugs through the skin directly into the bloodstream and not through the GI system. 

What can women do to help ensure that they don’t become pregnant while using these drugs? 

“I really think that if patients want to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy, that as soon as they start the GLP receptor agonists, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use condoms, because the onset of action is pretty quick,” said Dr. Kodaman, noting also that “at the lowest dose there may not be a lot of potential effect on gastric emptying. But as the dose goes up, it becomes much more common or can cause diarrhea.” 

Dr. Shah said that in his practice he’s “been telling patients to add barrier contraception” 4 weeks before they start their first dose “and at any dose adjustment.”

Zoobia Chaudhry, an obesity medicine doctor and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, recommends that “patients just make sure that the injection and medication that they take are at least 1 hour apart.”

“Most of the time, patients do take birth control before bedtime, so if the two are spaced, it should be OK,” she said.

Another option is for women to speak to their doctors about other contraceptive options like IUDs or implantable rods, where gastric absorption is not going to be an issue. 

“There’s very little research on this class of drugs,” said Emily Goodstein, a 40-year-old small-business owner in Washington, who recently switched from Ozempic to Mounjaro. “Being a person who lives in a larger body is such a horrifying experience because of the way that the world discriminates against you.”

She appreciates the feeling of being proactive that these new drugs grant. It has “opened up a bunch of opportunities for me to be seen as a full individual by the medical establishment,” she said. “I was willing to take the risk, knowing that I would be on these drugs for the rest of my life.”

In addition to being what Dr. Goodstein refers to as a guinea pig, she said she made sure that her primary care doctor was aware that she was not trying or planning to become pregnant again. (She has a 3-year-old child.) Still, her doctor mentioned only the most common side effects linked to these drugs, like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, and did not mention the risk of pregnancy.

“Folks are really not talking about the reproductive implications,” she said, referring to members of a Facebook group on these drugs that she belongs to. 

Like patients themselves, many doctors are just beginning to get their arms around these agents. “Awareness, education, provider involvement, and having a multidisciplinary team could help patients achieve the goals that they set out for themselves,” said Dr. Shah. 

Clear conversations are key.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The strike by health care workers at Kaiser Permanente may not involve physicians (yet). But as more doctors in the United States are finding themselves working as salaried employees, physicians can – and probably will – become a powerful force for change in a health care system that has shown itself to be increasingly hostile to employee concerns over issues involving patient care, wages and benefits, safety, and well-being.

Salaried employment has its challenges. Physician-employees may have less autonomy and voice in decision-making that affects patients. They may splinter into fragmented work groups; feel isolated; and have different imperatives based on who they are, what they want, and where they work. They may feel more removed from their patients and struggle to build strong relationships, with their employers in the way.

Yet important opportunities exist for doctors when embracing their employee side. These opportunities can help them and other health care workers fight effectively for their interests and those of patients in a corporatized health care system. Examples of these interests include adequate compensation, wellness, job security, patient and worker safety, health care quality, reasonable workloads and schedules, and fair treatment by employers, including the need to exhibit a strong collective voice in organizational decision-making.

Some believe that physician-employees must be unionized to maximize their rights and power as employees. Many expect physician unionization to take hold more fully over time. Medical residents, the doctors of tomorrow, are already considering unionization in greater numbers. Some are also doing it in the same employment setting alongside other health professionals, such as nurses.

Having studied doctors and their employment situations for years, I am convinced that whether through unionization or another approach, physicians must also change how they think about control; train and learn alongside other health care workers who share similar interests; and elevate at an early career stage their knowledge of the business side of health care.
 

Adopt a more pragmatic definition of autonomy

Doctors must embrace an updated definition of autonomy – one that matches their status as highly paid labor.

When I have spoken to physicians in my research about what autonomy means to them, many seem unable to reconceptualize it from a vague and absolute form of their profession’s strategic control over their economic fates and technical skills toward an individualized control that is situation-specific, one centered on winning the daily fights about workplace bread-and-butter issues such as those mentioned above.

But a more pragmatic definition of autonomy could get doctors focused on influencing important issues of the patient-care day and enhance their negotiating power with employers. It would allow physicians to break out of what often seems a paralysis of inaction – waiting for employers, insurers, or the government to reinstate the profession’s idealized version of control by handing it back the keys to the health care system through major regulatory, structural, and reimbursement-related changes. This fantasy is unlikely to become reality.

Physician-employees I’ve talked to over the years understand their everyday challenges. But when it comes to engaging in localized and sustained action to overcome them, they often perform less well, leading to feelings of helplessness and burnout. Valuing tactical control over their jobs and work setting will yield smaller but more impactful wins as employees intent on making their everyday work lives better.
 

Train alongside other health care professionals

Physicians must accept that how they are trained no longer prepares them for the employee world into which most are dropped. For instance, unless doctors are trained collaboratively alongside other health care professionals – such as nurses – they are less likely to identify closely with these colleagues once in practice. There is strength in numbers, so this mutual identification empowers both groups of employees. Yet, medical education remains largely the same: training young medical students in isolation for the first couple of years, then placing them into clerkships and residencies where true interprofessional care opportunities remain stunted and secondary to the “physician as captain of the team” mantra.

Unfortunately, the “hidden curriculum” of medicine helps convince medical students and residents early in their careers that they are the unquestioned leaders in patient care settings. This hierarchy encourages some doctors to keep their psychological distance from other members of the health care team and to resist sharing power, concerns, or insights with less skilled health care workers. This socialization harms the ability of physicians to act in a unified fashion alongside these other workers. Having physicians learn and train alongside other health professionals yields positive benefits for collective advocacy, including a shared sense of purpose, positive views on collaboration with others in the health setting, and greater development of bonds with nonphysician coworkers.
 

Integrate business with medical training in real time

Medical students and residents generally lack exposure to the everyday business realities of the U.S. health care system. This gap hinders their ability to understand the employee world and push for the types of changes and work conditions that benefit all health care workers. Formal business and management training should be a required part of every U.S. medical school and residency curriculum from day one. If you see it at all in medical schools now, it is mostly by accident, or given separate treatment in the form of standalone MBA or MPH degrees that rarely integrate organically and in real time with actual medical training. Not every doctor needs an MBA or MPH degree. However, all of them require a stronger contextual understanding of how the medicine they wish to practice is shaped by the economic and fiscal circumstances surrounding it – circumstances they do not control.

This is another reason why young doctors are unhappy and burned out. They cannot push for specific changes or properly critique the pros and cons of how their work is structured because they have not been made aware, in real time as they learn clinical practice, how their jobs are shaped by realities such as insurance coverage and reimbursement, the fragmentation of the care delivery system, their employer’s financial health , and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. They aren’t given the methods and tools related to process and quality improvement, budgeting, negotiation, risk management, leadership, and talent management that might help them navigate these undermining forces. They also get little advance exposure in their training to important workplace “soft” skills in such areas as how to work in teams, networking, communication and listening, empathy, and problem-solving – all necessary foci for bringing them closer to other health care workers and advocating alongside them effectively with health care employers.

Now is the time for physicians to embrace their identity as employees. Doing so is in their own best interest as professionals. It will help others in the health care workforce as well as patients. Moreover, it provides a needed counterbalance to the powerful corporate ethos now ascendant in U.S. health care.

Timothy Hoff, PhD, is a professor of management and healthcare systems at Northeastern University, Boston, and an associate fellow at the University of Oxford, England. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, the manufacturer announced in a press release.

The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.

Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”

The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
 

Available in about 1 month in U.S.

Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.

Three phase 3 trials

Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).

“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:

• Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
• Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
• Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.

Safety information

The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.

Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.

Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.

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