LISBON – Efforts are underway to better identify which individuals with so-called “prediabetes” are at greatest risk for developing type 2 diabetes and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.

“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.

There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.

She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.

Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.

“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.

With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.

“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.

Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.

“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.

“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”


 

Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk

The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.

Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.

“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”  

Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.

“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.

“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”

For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”

However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
 

Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?

Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.  

Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.

“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.

Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”

Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”

And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m² did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
 

Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?

Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”

“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”

Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”

In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’  That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”

The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.

Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Efforts are underway to better identify which individuals with so-called “prediabetes” are at greatest risk for developing type 2 diabetes and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.

“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.

There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.

She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.

Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.

“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.

With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.

“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.

Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.

“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.

“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”


 

Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk

The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.

Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.

“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”  

Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.

“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.

“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”

For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”

However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
 

Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?

Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.  

Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.

“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.

Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”

Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”

And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m² did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
 

Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?

Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”

“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”

Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”

In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’  That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”

The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.

Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – Efforts are underway to better identify which individuals with so-called “prediabetes” are at greatest risk for developing type 2 diabetes and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.

“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.

There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.

She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.

Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.

“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.

With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.

“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.

Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.

“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.

“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”


 

Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk

The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.

Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.

“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”  

Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.

“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.

“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”

For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”

However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
 

Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?

Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.  

Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.

“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.

Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”

Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”

And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m² did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
 

Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?

Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”

“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”

Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”

In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’  That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”

The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.

Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and food, may raise the risk for anxiety, early research suggests.

In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.

This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Transgenerational transmission

When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.

Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.

Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.

“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.

“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.

“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
 

Far from harmless?

The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.

In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.

The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.

As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.

Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.

The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Corticosteroid (CS) injections may worsen progression of knee osteoarthritis as seen on radiography and whole-knee MRI. Injecting hyaluronic acid (HA) instead, or managing the condition without injections, may better preserve knee structure and cartilage, according to results of two related studies presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The findings come nonrandomized, observational cohort studies, leading knee OA experts to call for further study in randomized trial settings. In the meantime, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians is advised on the use of these injections.

For knee OA, most patients seek a noninvasive treatment for symptomatic relief. “At least 10% of these patients undergo local treatment with injectable corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid,” the lead author of one of the studies, Upasana Upadhyay Bharadwaj, MD, research fellow in musculoskeletal radiology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a video press release.

Researchers in both studies used data and images from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicenter, longitudinal, observational study of 4,796 U.S. patients aged 45-79 years with knee OA. Participants were enrolled from February 2004 to May 2006.

The OAI maintains a natural history database of information regarding participants’ clinical evaluation data, x-rays, MRI scans, and a biospecimen repository. Data are available to researchers worldwide.
 

Two studies draw similar conclusions

In one study, Dr. Bharadwaj and colleagues found that HA injections appeared to show decreased knee OA progression in bone marrow lesions.

They investigated 8 patients who received one CS injection, 12 who received one HA injection, and 40 control persons who received neither treatment. Participants were propensity-score matched by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE).

The researchers semiquantitatively graded three Tesla MRI scans that had been obtained at baseline, 2 years before the injection, and 2 years after the injection, using whole-organ MRI score (WORMS) for the meniscus, bone marrow lesions, cartilage, joint effusion, and ligaments.

They quantified OA progression using the difference in WORMS between baseline and 2-year follow-up, and they used linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, BMI, KL grade, WOMAC, and PASE, to identify the link between type of injection and progression of WORMS.

At 2 years, the authors found a significant association between CS injection and postinjection progression of WORMS over 2 years for the knee overall, the lateral meniscus, lateral cartilage, and medial cartilage. There was no significant link between HA injection and postinjection progression of WORMS or between either injection type and progression of pain, as quantified by WOMAC. There was also no significant difference in progression of WORMS over the 2 years prior to injection for CS and HA injections.

“Corticosteroid injections must be administered with caution with respect to long-term effects on osteoarthritis,” Dr. Bharadwaj advised. “Hyaluronic acid injections, on the other hand, may slow down progression of knee osteoarthritis and alleviate long-term effects while offering similar symptomatic relief to corticosteroid injections. Overall, they are perhaps a safer alternative when looking at medium- and long-term disease course of knee osteoarthritis.”

In the second study, lead author Azad Darbandi, MS, a fourth-year medical student at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, and colleagues found that patients who received CS injections experienced significantly more medial joint space narrowing.

They identified 210 knees with imaging at baseline and at 48 months that received CS injections, and 59 that received HA injections; 6,827 knees served as controls. The investigators matched 50 patients per group on the basis of confounding factors, which included age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, surgery, and semiquantitative imaging outcomes at baseline. They performed ANCOVA testing using 48-month semiquantitative imaging outcomes as dependent variables and confounding variables as covariates.

The researchers analyzed joint space narrowing, KL grade, and tibia/femur medial/lateral compartment osteophyte formation and sclerosis.

At 4 years, the average KL grade in the CS group was 2.79, it was 2.11 in the HA group,;and it was 2.37 in the control group. Intergroup comparisons showed significant differences in KL grade between CS and HA groups and between CS and control groups. Medial compartment joint space narrowing was 1.56 in the CS group, 1.11 in the HA group, and 1.18 in controls. There was a significant difference between the CS and control groups. Other dependent variables were not significant.

“These preliminary results suggest that corticosteroid injections accelerated the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis, specifically medial joint space narrowing and Kellgren-Lawrence grading, whereas hyaluronic acid injections did not,” Mr. Darbandi said in an interview.

“OA radiographic progression does not always correlate with clinical progression, and further research is needed,” he added.

Proper matching of patients at baseline for confounding factors is a strength of the study, Mr. Darbandi said, while the retrospective study design is a weakness.
 

Experts share their perspectives on the preliminary results

Michael M. Kheir, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Michigan Health System, who was not involved in the studies, said he would like to see further related research.

“Perhaps steroid injections are not as benign as they once seemed,” he added. “They should be reserved for patients who already have significant arthritis and are seeking temporary relief prior to surgical reconstruction with a joint replacement, or for patients with recalcitrant pain after having already tried HA injections.”

William A. Jiranek, MD, professor and orthopedic surgeon at Duke Health in Morrisville, N.C., who also was not involved in the studies, was not surprised by the findings.

“It is important to do these studies to learn that steroid injections do not come with zero cost,” he said.

“I am pretty sure that a percentage of these patients had no cartilage loss at all,” he added. “We need to understand which OA phenotypes are not at risk of progressive cartilage loss from steroid injections.”

Annunziato (Ned) Amendola, MD, professor and sports medicine orthopedic surgeon at Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who was also not involved in the studies, said he would like to know how injection effectiveness and activity level are related.

“If the injections were effective at relieving pain, and the patients were more active, that may have predisposed to more joint wear,” he said. “It’s like tires that last longer if you don’t abuse them.”
 

Shared decision-making and further research recommended

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said: “The lack of randomization introduces potential biases around why certain therapies (CS injection, HA injection, or neither) were selected over others (such as disease severity, preference, comorbid conditions, other contraindications, etc), thus making interpretation of the findings challenging.

“The causal relationship remains in question, and questions around the efficacy of intra-articular HA in particular, and the ideal settings for intra-articular therapy in general, persist,” noted Dr. Nelson, who was also not involved in the studies. “Thus, shared decision-making between patients and their providers is essential when considering these options.”

C. Kent Kwoh, MD, professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona and director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center, both in Tucson, said in an interview that these types of studies are important because CS injections are common treatments for knee OA, they are recommended in treatment guidelines, and other good options are lacking.

But he pointed out that the results of these two studies need to be interpreted with caution and should not be used to decide the course of treatment.

“These data are hypothesis generating. They suggest association, but they do not show causation,” said Dr. Kwoh, who was also not involved in the studies. “Both studies are secondary analyses of data collected from the OAI, which was not specifically designed to answer the questions these studies are posing.

“The OAI was not a treatment study, and participants were seen only once a year or so. They may have had joint injections anytime from only days to around 1 year before their visit, and their levels of activity or pain just prior to or just after their joint injections were not reported,” Dr. Kwoh explained.

The reasons why patients did or did not receive a specific joint injection – including their socioeconomic status, race, access to insurance, and other confounding factors – were not assessed and may have affected the results, he added.

The fact that both studies used the same data and came to the same conclusions gives the conclusions some strength, he said, but “the gold standard to understanding causation would be a randomized, controlled trial.”

Mr. Darbandi’s research received grant support from Boeing, His c-authors, as well as all experts not involved in the studies, reported no relevant financial relationshiips. Dr. Bharadwaj did not provide conflict-of-interest and funding details. Dr. Kwoh reported membership on panels that have developed guidelines for the management of knee OA.

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

Corticosteroid (CS) injections may worsen progression of knee osteoarthritis as seen on radiography and whole-knee MRI. Injecting hyaluronic acid (HA) instead, or managing the condition without injections, may better preserve knee structure and cartilage, according to results of two related studies presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The findings come nonrandomized, observational cohort studies, leading knee OA experts to call for further study in randomized trial settings. In the meantime, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians is advised on the use of these injections.

For knee OA, most patients seek a noninvasive treatment for symptomatic relief. “At least 10% of these patients undergo local treatment with injectable corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid,” the lead author of one of the studies, Upasana Upadhyay Bharadwaj, MD, research fellow in musculoskeletal radiology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a video press release.

Researchers in both studies used data and images from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicenter, longitudinal, observational study of 4,796 U.S. patients aged 45-79 years with knee OA. Participants were enrolled from February 2004 to May 2006.

The OAI maintains a natural history database of information regarding participants’ clinical evaluation data, x-rays, MRI scans, and a biospecimen repository. Data are available to researchers worldwide.
 

Two studies draw similar conclusions

In one study, Dr. Bharadwaj and colleagues found that HA injections appeared to show decreased knee OA progression in bone marrow lesions.

They investigated 8 patients who received one CS injection, 12 who received one HA injection, and 40 control persons who received neither treatment. Participants were propensity-score matched by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE).

The researchers semiquantitatively graded three Tesla MRI scans that had been obtained at baseline, 2 years before the injection, and 2 years after the injection, using whole-organ MRI score (WORMS) for the meniscus, bone marrow lesions, cartilage, joint effusion, and ligaments.

They quantified OA progression using the difference in WORMS between baseline and 2-year follow-up, and they used linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, BMI, KL grade, WOMAC, and PASE, to identify the link between type of injection and progression of WORMS.

At 2 years, the authors found a significant association between CS injection and postinjection progression of WORMS over 2 years for the knee overall, the lateral meniscus, lateral cartilage, and medial cartilage. There was no significant link between HA injection and postinjection progression of WORMS or between either injection type and progression of pain, as quantified by WOMAC. There was also no significant difference in progression of WORMS over the 2 years prior to injection for CS and HA injections.

“Corticosteroid injections must be administered with caution with respect to long-term effects on osteoarthritis,” Dr. Bharadwaj advised. “Hyaluronic acid injections, on the other hand, may slow down progression of knee osteoarthritis and alleviate long-term effects while offering similar symptomatic relief to corticosteroid injections. Overall, they are perhaps a safer alternative when looking at medium- and long-term disease course of knee osteoarthritis.”

In the second study, lead author Azad Darbandi, MS, a fourth-year medical student at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, and colleagues found that patients who received CS injections experienced significantly more medial joint space narrowing.

They identified 210 knees with imaging at baseline and at 48 months that received CS injections, and 59 that received HA injections; 6,827 knees served as controls. The investigators matched 50 patients per group on the basis of confounding factors, which included age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, surgery, and semiquantitative imaging outcomes at baseline. They performed ANCOVA testing using 48-month semiquantitative imaging outcomes as dependent variables and confounding variables as covariates.

The researchers analyzed joint space narrowing, KL grade, and tibia/femur medial/lateral compartment osteophyte formation and sclerosis.

At 4 years, the average KL grade in the CS group was 2.79, it was 2.11 in the HA group,;and it was 2.37 in the control group. Intergroup comparisons showed significant differences in KL grade between CS and HA groups and between CS and control groups. Medial compartment joint space narrowing was 1.56 in the CS group, 1.11 in the HA group, and 1.18 in controls. There was a significant difference between the CS and control groups. Other dependent variables were not significant.

“These preliminary results suggest that corticosteroid injections accelerated the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis, specifically medial joint space narrowing and Kellgren-Lawrence grading, whereas hyaluronic acid injections did not,” Mr. Darbandi said in an interview.

“OA radiographic progression does not always correlate with clinical progression, and further research is needed,” he added.

Proper matching of patients at baseline for confounding factors is a strength of the study, Mr. Darbandi said, while the retrospective study design is a weakness.
 

Experts share their perspectives on the preliminary results

Michael M. Kheir, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Michigan Health System, who was not involved in the studies, said he would like to see further related research.

“Perhaps steroid injections are not as benign as they once seemed,” he added. “They should be reserved for patients who already have significant arthritis and are seeking temporary relief prior to surgical reconstruction with a joint replacement, or for patients with recalcitrant pain after having already tried HA injections.”

William A. Jiranek, MD, professor and orthopedic surgeon at Duke Health in Morrisville, N.C., who also was not involved in the studies, was not surprised by the findings.

“It is important to do these studies to learn that steroid injections do not come with zero cost,” he said.

“I am pretty sure that a percentage of these patients had no cartilage loss at all,” he added. “We need to understand which OA phenotypes are not at risk of progressive cartilage loss from steroid injections.”

Annunziato (Ned) Amendola, MD, professor and sports medicine orthopedic surgeon at Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who was also not involved in the studies, said he would like to know how injection effectiveness and activity level are related.

“If the injections were effective at relieving pain, and the patients were more active, that may have predisposed to more joint wear,” he said. “It’s like tires that last longer if you don’t abuse them.”
 

Shared decision-making and further research recommended

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said: “The lack of randomization introduces potential biases around why certain therapies (CS injection, HA injection, or neither) were selected over others (such as disease severity, preference, comorbid conditions, other contraindications, etc), thus making interpretation of the findings challenging.

“The causal relationship remains in question, and questions around the efficacy of intra-articular HA in particular, and the ideal settings for intra-articular therapy in general, persist,” noted Dr. Nelson, who was also not involved in the studies. “Thus, shared decision-making between patients and their providers is essential when considering these options.”

C. Kent Kwoh, MD, professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona and director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center, both in Tucson, said in an interview that these types of studies are important because CS injections are common treatments for knee OA, they are recommended in treatment guidelines, and other good options are lacking.

But he pointed out that the results of these two studies need to be interpreted with caution and should not be used to decide the course of treatment.

“These data are hypothesis generating. They suggest association, but they do not show causation,” said Dr. Kwoh, who was also not involved in the studies. “Both studies are secondary analyses of data collected from the OAI, which was not specifically designed to answer the questions these studies are posing.

“The OAI was not a treatment study, and participants were seen only once a year or so. They may have had joint injections anytime from only days to around 1 year before their visit, and their levels of activity or pain just prior to or just after their joint injections were not reported,” Dr. Kwoh explained.

The reasons why patients did or did not receive a specific joint injection – including their socioeconomic status, race, access to insurance, and other confounding factors – were not assessed and may have affected the results, he added.

The fact that both studies used the same data and came to the same conclusions gives the conclusions some strength, he said, but “the gold standard to understanding causation would be a randomized, controlled trial.”

Mr. Darbandi’s research received grant support from Boeing, His c-authors, as well as all experts not involved in the studies, reported no relevant financial relationshiips. Dr. Bharadwaj did not provide conflict-of-interest and funding details. Dr. Kwoh reported membership on panels that have developed guidelines for the management of knee OA.

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

Corticosteroid (CS) injections may worsen progression of knee osteoarthritis as seen on radiography and whole-knee MRI. Injecting hyaluronic acid (HA) instead, or managing the condition without injections, may better preserve knee structure and cartilage, according to results of two related studies presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

The findings come nonrandomized, observational cohort studies, leading knee OA experts to call for further study in randomized trial settings. In the meantime, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians is advised on the use of these injections.

For knee OA, most patients seek a noninvasive treatment for symptomatic relief. “At least 10% of these patients undergo local treatment with injectable corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid,” the lead author of one of the studies, Upasana Upadhyay Bharadwaj, MD, research fellow in musculoskeletal radiology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a video press release.

Researchers in both studies used data and images from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicenter, longitudinal, observational study of 4,796 U.S. patients aged 45-79 years with knee OA. Participants were enrolled from February 2004 to May 2006.

The OAI maintains a natural history database of information regarding participants’ clinical evaluation data, x-rays, MRI scans, and a biospecimen repository. Data are available to researchers worldwide.
 

Two studies draw similar conclusions

In one study, Dr. Bharadwaj and colleagues found that HA injections appeared to show decreased knee OA progression in bone marrow lesions.

They investigated 8 patients who received one CS injection, 12 who received one HA injection, and 40 control persons who received neither treatment. Participants were propensity-score matched by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE).

The researchers semiquantitatively graded three Tesla MRI scans that had been obtained at baseline, 2 years before the injection, and 2 years after the injection, using whole-organ MRI score (WORMS) for the meniscus, bone marrow lesions, cartilage, joint effusion, and ligaments.

They quantified OA progression using the difference in WORMS between baseline and 2-year follow-up, and they used linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, BMI, KL grade, WOMAC, and PASE, to identify the link between type of injection and progression of WORMS.

At 2 years, the authors found a significant association between CS injection and postinjection progression of WORMS over 2 years for the knee overall, the lateral meniscus, lateral cartilage, and medial cartilage. There was no significant link between HA injection and postinjection progression of WORMS or between either injection type and progression of pain, as quantified by WOMAC. There was also no significant difference in progression of WORMS over the 2 years prior to injection for CS and HA injections.

“Corticosteroid injections must be administered with caution with respect to long-term effects on osteoarthritis,” Dr. Bharadwaj advised. “Hyaluronic acid injections, on the other hand, may slow down progression of knee osteoarthritis and alleviate long-term effects while offering similar symptomatic relief to corticosteroid injections. Overall, they are perhaps a safer alternative when looking at medium- and long-term disease course of knee osteoarthritis.”

In the second study, lead author Azad Darbandi, MS, a fourth-year medical student at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, and colleagues found that patients who received CS injections experienced significantly more medial joint space narrowing.

They identified 210 knees with imaging at baseline and at 48 months that received CS injections, and 59 that received HA injections; 6,827 knees served as controls. The investigators matched 50 patients per group on the basis of confounding factors, which included age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, surgery, and semiquantitative imaging outcomes at baseline. They performed ANCOVA testing using 48-month semiquantitative imaging outcomes as dependent variables and confounding variables as covariates.

The researchers analyzed joint space narrowing, KL grade, and tibia/femur medial/lateral compartment osteophyte formation and sclerosis.

At 4 years, the average KL grade in the CS group was 2.79, it was 2.11 in the HA group,;and it was 2.37 in the control group. Intergroup comparisons showed significant differences in KL grade between CS and HA groups and between CS and control groups. Medial compartment joint space narrowing was 1.56 in the CS group, 1.11 in the HA group, and 1.18 in controls. There was a significant difference between the CS and control groups. Other dependent variables were not significant.

“These preliminary results suggest that corticosteroid injections accelerated the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis, specifically medial joint space narrowing and Kellgren-Lawrence grading, whereas hyaluronic acid injections did not,” Mr. Darbandi said in an interview.

“OA radiographic progression does not always correlate with clinical progression, and further research is needed,” he added.

Proper matching of patients at baseline for confounding factors is a strength of the study, Mr. Darbandi said, while the retrospective study design is a weakness.
 

Experts share their perspectives on the preliminary results

Michael M. Kheir, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at the University of Michigan Health System, who was not involved in the studies, said he would like to see further related research.

“Perhaps steroid injections are not as benign as they once seemed,” he added. “They should be reserved for patients who already have significant arthritis and are seeking temporary relief prior to surgical reconstruction with a joint replacement, or for patients with recalcitrant pain after having already tried HA injections.”

William A. Jiranek, MD, professor and orthopedic surgeon at Duke Health in Morrisville, N.C., who also was not involved in the studies, was not surprised by the findings.

“It is important to do these studies to learn that steroid injections do not come with zero cost,” he said.

“I am pretty sure that a percentage of these patients had no cartilage loss at all,” he added. “We need to understand which OA phenotypes are not at risk of progressive cartilage loss from steroid injections.”

Annunziato (Ned) Amendola, MD, professor and sports medicine orthopedic surgeon at Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who was also not involved in the studies, said he would like to know how injection effectiveness and activity level are related.

“If the injections were effective at relieving pain, and the patients were more active, that may have predisposed to more joint wear,” he said. “It’s like tires that last longer if you don’t abuse them.”
 

Shared decision-making and further research recommended

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said: “The lack of randomization introduces potential biases around why certain therapies (CS injection, HA injection, or neither) were selected over others (such as disease severity, preference, comorbid conditions, other contraindications, etc), thus making interpretation of the findings challenging.

“The causal relationship remains in question, and questions around the efficacy of intra-articular HA in particular, and the ideal settings for intra-articular therapy in general, persist,” noted Dr. Nelson, who was also not involved in the studies. “Thus, shared decision-making between patients and their providers is essential when considering these options.”

C. Kent Kwoh, MD, professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona and director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center, both in Tucson, said in an interview that these types of studies are important because CS injections are common treatments for knee OA, they are recommended in treatment guidelines, and other good options are lacking.

But he pointed out that the results of these two studies need to be interpreted with caution and should not be used to decide the course of treatment.

“These data are hypothesis generating. They suggest association, but they do not show causation,” said Dr. Kwoh, who was also not involved in the studies. “Both studies are secondary analyses of data collected from the OAI, which was not specifically designed to answer the questions these studies are posing.

“The OAI was not a treatment study, and participants were seen only once a year or so. They may have had joint injections anytime from only days to around 1 year before their visit, and their levels of activity or pain just prior to or just after their joint injections were not reported,” Dr. Kwoh explained.

The reasons why patients did or did not receive a specific joint injection – including their socioeconomic status, race, access to insurance, and other confounding factors – were not assessed and may have affected the results, he added.

The fact that both studies used the same data and came to the same conclusions gives the conclusions some strength, he said, but “the gold standard to understanding causation would be a randomized, controlled trial.”

Mr. Darbandi’s research received grant support from Boeing, His c-authors, as well as all experts not involved in the studies, reported no relevant financial relationshiips. Dr. Bharadwaj did not provide conflict-of-interest and funding details. Dr. Kwoh reported membership on panels that have developed guidelines for the management of knee OA.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

For many years, it has been believed that the aging process is inevitable and that age-related diseases cannot be prevented or reversed. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize aging as an indication for drug approval because there are no markers to determine whether possible treatments have a significant impact on the hallmarks of aging.

The field of geroscience aims to find ways to change this by delaying the onset of age-related diseases or by extending the life span. On May 19, 2021, experts in geroscience met virtually at a symposium of the New York Academy of Sciences. Presentations and discussions with experts in the field showed that remarkable advances have been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying biological aging. Those mechanisms contribute to the vulnerability of older adults. The presentations focused on identifying biomarkers of aging and on the search for interventions to prevent and treat age-related diseases.

Perspectives from this meeting were published in a report.
 

An abridged glossary

• Senescent cells: These are old cells with irreversibly damaged DNA; they strongly resist apoptosis. Thus, they are not eliminated and continue to secrete pathogenic proinflammatory molecules.
• Senolytics: This is a class of compounds that promote the removal of senescent cells from the body.
• Autophagy: This is a process that promotes protein degradation, which is attenuated with aging and that impedes the aggregation of proteins harmful to cell function, particularly those of the central nervous system.
• Proteostasis: This is the dynamic regulation of protein homeostasis.
• Epigenetics: This is the field of biology that studies phenotype changes that are not caused by changes in DNA sequencing and that continue to affect cellular division.
• Metabolome: This refers to small molecules that make up the building blocks of all organismal features, from cell membranes to metabolic cycles to genes and proteins.
• Translational research: This involves applying primary research results to clinical research and vice versa.

Possible research topics

Senescence not only occurs with age but also drives aging. At the meeting, evidence was provided that senescent cells may exacerbate the clinical course of older adults in cases of infections (for example, COVID-19) as they lead to cytokine storms.

Experiments on old mice that have undergone genetic modification of senescent cells or the administration of “senolytic cocktails” composed of dasatinib plus quercetin protected the animals from the effects of viral infections. This finding corroborates the idea that factors involved in biological aging increase vulnerability and could be modified through treatment.

Alzheimer’s disease is an example of the effects of cellular senescence. Senescent cells develop a senescence-associated secretory phenotype that can be toxic to neighboring healthy cells and can allow senescence to propagate within tissues. This effect makes Alzheimer’s disease an essential focal point when studying the use of senolytics. In addition, agents that stimulate autophagy may be of interest for treating degenerative diseases.
 

Assessing therapeutic effects

It may be possible to assess the therapeutic effects of drug candidates using the following biomarkers.

• Growth hormone and type 1 insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1): Older adults are often prescribed growth hormone. However, recent data suggest that doing so is not advantageous to this patient population, because it antagonizes proteostasis and other cell maintenance mechanisms in older age. Experimental studies and studies conducted on centenarians suggest that low growth hormone and IGF-1 levels contribute to longevity and may be therapeutic biomarkers.
• Epigenetics: DNA methylation is a method that offers an “epigenetic clock” to compare biological age with chronologic age. Higher epigenetic age was associated with increased mortality risk, breast cancer, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Therefore, it could also be a therapeutic biomarker.
• Metabolomics: Studying metabolomes facilitates the identification of the link between genetic polymorphisms and longevity, as most polymorphisms explain less than 0.5% of longevity variations.
• New translational strategy: It is common practice to treat each age-related disease individually. An alternative strategy would be to target the hallmarks of biological aging to prevent these diseases from developing. The rate of biological aging correlates with the speed of damage accumulation at the macromolecular, organelle, and cellular levels. It also affects the capacity of the body to repair this damage. The assessment of biomarkers would make possibile research into the effects of short- and long-term treatments that minimize damage and enhance resilience related to diseases common with aging.

New translational research

The report highlights two translational research models: the in-depth study of centenarians and the analysis of how immune aging makes older adults vulnerable to COVID-19. The impact of impaired immunity on aging became particularly evident during the pandemic. However, to home in on immunity as a therapeutic target and to better understand immune resilience, the specific nature of immune and biological deficits still need to be defined.

Metformin is among the therapeutic agents under investigation in cutting-edge clinical research. Its effect on aging will be studied in the Targeting Aging with Metformin (TAME) clinical trial. This trial is the first to study aging outcomes. The goal is to create a regulatory framework that future therapies can follow to achieve FDA approval.

There are three promising therapeutic platforms among the cutting-edge research studies. The first aims to produce adenosine triphosphate, levels of which decline dramatically with aging. The second aims to promote autophagy to remove cellular waste to treat neurodegenerative diseases. The third reprograms the epigenome to a younger state.

Research on mitochondrial dysfunction is relevant because it is highly involved in age-related diseases. Mitochondrial-derived peptides could potentially serve as biomarkers of mitochondrial function in aging studies and become promising therapeutic targets in age-related diseases. One of these peptides, humanin, has been demonstrated to exert protective effects on the heart, brain, and liver. Researchers observed that mitochondrial proteins are age-dependent and are suppressed by growth hormone and IGF-1. They also found that humanin levels are correlated with endothelial function. Data from animal studies have shown that sustained humanin levels are positively linked to longevity; these findings are mirrored in data from centenarians and their offspring, who have higher levels of humanin.

The formation of a Translational Geroscience Network composed of several scientists from various institutions should accelerate the application of this understanding. Despite the ongoing investigational and clinical studies, senolytics should not be regarded as extending life span or treating certain conditions, because their full safety profiles have not yet been elucidated.
 

Conclusion

Geroscience faces challenges in dealing with age-related problems. It is hoped that these challenges will be overcome through investigational and clinical studies on the mechanisms involved in aging. In-depth study of the interactions of underlying mechanisms of aging are needed to answer the following questions:

• Is there a hierarchical relationship among these mechanisms?
• Are there organ or cell-type differences in the interactions among these mechanisms?
• Is it possible to achieve a synergistic effect through combined interventions targeting several of the processes that drive aging?

It is complicated, but researchers are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

For many years, it has been believed that the aging process is inevitable and that age-related diseases cannot be prevented or reversed. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize aging as an indication for drug approval because there are no markers to determine whether possible treatments have a significant impact on the hallmarks of aging.

The field of geroscience aims to find ways to change this by delaying the onset of age-related diseases or by extending the life span. On May 19, 2021, experts in geroscience met virtually at a symposium of the New York Academy of Sciences. Presentations and discussions with experts in the field showed that remarkable advances have been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying biological aging. Those mechanisms contribute to the vulnerability of older adults. The presentations focused on identifying biomarkers of aging and on the search for interventions to prevent and treat age-related diseases.

Perspectives from this meeting were published in a report.
 

An abridged glossary

• Senescent cells: These are old cells with irreversibly damaged DNA; they strongly resist apoptosis. Thus, they are not eliminated and continue to secrete pathogenic proinflammatory molecules.
• Senolytics: This is a class of compounds that promote the removal of senescent cells from the body.
• Autophagy: This is a process that promotes protein degradation, which is attenuated with aging and that impedes the aggregation of proteins harmful to cell function, particularly those of the central nervous system.
• Proteostasis: This is the dynamic regulation of protein homeostasis.
• Epigenetics: This is the field of biology that studies phenotype changes that are not caused by changes in DNA sequencing and that continue to affect cellular division.
• Metabolome: This refers to small molecules that make up the building blocks of all organismal features, from cell membranes to metabolic cycles to genes and proteins.
• Translational research: This involves applying primary research results to clinical research and vice versa.

Possible research topics

Senescence not only occurs with age but also drives aging. At the meeting, evidence was provided that senescent cells may exacerbate the clinical course of older adults in cases of infections (for example, COVID-19) as they lead to cytokine storms.

Experiments on old mice that have undergone genetic modification of senescent cells or the administration of “senolytic cocktails” composed of dasatinib plus quercetin protected the animals from the effects of viral infections. This finding corroborates the idea that factors involved in biological aging increase vulnerability and could be modified through treatment.

Alzheimer’s disease is an example of the effects of cellular senescence. Senescent cells develop a senescence-associated secretory phenotype that can be toxic to neighboring healthy cells and can allow senescence to propagate within tissues. This effect makes Alzheimer’s disease an essential focal point when studying the use of senolytics. In addition, agents that stimulate autophagy may be of interest for treating degenerative diseases.
 

Assessing therapeutic effects

It may be possible to assess the therapeutic effects of drug candidates using the following biomarkers.

• Growth hormone and type 1 insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1): Older adults are often prescribed growth hormone. However, recent data suggest that doing so is not advantageous to this patient population, because it antagonizes proteostasis and other cell maintenance mechanisms in older age. Experimental studies and studies conducted on centenarians suggest that low growth hormone and IGF-1 levels contribute to longevity and may be therapeutic biomarkers.
• Epigenetics: DNA methylation is a method that offers an “epigenetic clock” to compare biological age with chronologic age. Higher epigenetic age was associated with increased mortality risk, breast cancer, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Therefore, it could also be a therapeutic biomarker.
• Metabolomics: Studying metabolomes facilitates the identification of the link between genetic polymorphisms and longevity, as most polymorphisms explain less than 0.5% of longevity variations.
• New translational strategy: It is common practice to treat each age-related disease individually. An alternative strategy would be to target the hallmarks of biological aging to prevent these diseases from developing. The rate of biological aging correlates with the speed of damage accumulation at the macromolecular, organelle, and cellular levels. It also affects the capacity of the body to repair this damage. The assessment of biomarkers would make possibile research into the effects of short- and long-term treatments that minimize damage and enhance resilience related to diseases common with aging.

New translational research

The report highlights two translational research models: the in-depth study of centenarians and the analysis of how immune aging makes older adults vulnerable to COVID-19. The impact of impaired immunity on aging became particularly evident during the pandemic. However, to home in on immunity as a therapeutic target and to better understand immune resilience, the specific nature of immune and biological deficits still need to be defined.

Metformin is among the therapeutic agents under investigation in cutting-edge clinical research. Its effect on aging will be studied in the Targeting Aging with Metformin (TAME) clinical trial. This trial is the first to study aging outcomes. The goal is to create a regulatory framework that future therapies can follow to achieve FDA approval.

There are three promising therapeutic platforms among the cutting-edge research studies. The first aims to produce adenosine triphosphate, levels of which decline dramatically with aging. The second aims to promote autophagy to remove cellular waste to treat neurodegenerative diseases. The third reprograms the epigenome to a younger state.

Research on mitochondrial dysfunction is relevant because it is highly involved in age-related diseases. Mitochondrial-derived peptides could potentially serve as biomarkers of mitochondrial function in aging studies and become promising therapeutic targets in age-related diseases. One of these peptides, humanin, has been demonstrated to exert protective effects on the heart, brain, and liver. Researchers observed that mitochondrial proteins are age-dependent and are suppressed by growth hormone and IGF-1. They also found that humanin levels are correlated with endothelial function. Data from animal studies have shown that sustained humanin levels are positively linked to longevity; these findings are mirrored in data from centenarians and their offspring, who have higher levels of humanin.

The formation of a Translational Geroscience Network composed of several scientists from various institutions should accelerate the application of this understanding. Despite the ongoing investigational and clinical studies, senolytics should not be regarded as extending life span or treating certain conditions, because their full safety profiles have not yet been elucidated.
 

Conclusion

Geroscience faces challenges in dealing with age-related problems. It is hoped that these challenges will be overcome through investigational and clinical studies on the mechanisms involved in aging. In-depth study of the interactions of underlying mechanisms of aging are needed to answer the following questions:

• Is there a hierarchical relationship among these mechanisms?
• Are there organ or cell-type differences in the interactions among these mechanisms?
• Is it possible to achieve a synergistic effect through combined interventions targeting several of the processes that drive aging?

It is complicated, but researchers are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

For many years, it has been believed that the aging process is inevitable and that age-related diseases cannot be prevented or reversed. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recognize aging as an indication for drug approval because there are no markers to determine whether possible treatments have a significant impact on the hallmarks of aging.

The field of geroscience aims to find ways to change this by delaying the onset of age-related diseases or by extending the life span. On May 19, 2021, experts in geroscience met virtually at a symposium of the New York Academy of Sciences. Presentations and discussions with experts in the field showed that remarkable advances have been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying biological aging. Those mechanisms contribute to the vulnerability of older adults. The presentations focused on identifying biomarkers of aging and on the search for interventions to prevent and treat age-related diseases.

Perspectives from this meeting were published in a report.
 

An abridged glossary

• Senescent cells: These are old cells with irreversibly damaged DNA; they strongly resist apoptosis. Thus, they are not eliminated and continue to secrete pathogenic proinflammatory molecules.
• Senolytics: This is a class of compounds that promote the removal of senescent cells from the body.
• Autophagy: This is a process that promotes protein degradation, which is attenuated with aging and that impedes the aggregation of proteins harmful to cell function, particularly those of the central nervous system.
• Proteostasis: This is the dynamic regulation of protein homeostasis.
• Epigenetics: This is the field of biology that studies phenotype changes that are not caused by changes in DNA sequencing and that continue to affect cellular division.
• Metabolome: This refers to small molecules that make up the building blocks of all organismal features, from cell membranes to metabolic cycles to genes and proteins.
• Translational research: This involves applying primary research results to clinical research and vice versa.

Possible research topics

Senescence not only occurs with age but also drives aging. At the meeting, evidence was provided that senescent cells may exacerbate the clinical course of older adults in cases of infections (for example, COVID-19) as they lead to cytokine storms.

Experiments on old mice that have undergone genetic modification of senescent cells or the administration of “senolytic cocktails” composed of dasatinib plus quercetin protected the animals from the effects of viral infections. This finding corroborates the idea that factors involved in biological aging increase vulnerability and could be modified through treatment.

Alzheimer’s disease is an example of the effects of cellular senescence. Senescent cells develop a senescence-associated secretory phenotype that can be toxic to neighboring healthy cells and can allow senescence to propagate within tissues. This effect makes Alzheimer’s disease an essential focal point when studying the use of senolytics. In addition, agents that stimulate autophagy may be of interest for treating degenerative diseases.
 

Assessing therapeutic effects

It may be possible to assess the therapeutic effects of drug candidates using the following biomarkers.

• Growth hormone and type 1 insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1): Older adults are often prescribed growth hormone. However, recent data suggest that doing so is not advantageous to this patient population, because it antagonizes proteostasis and other cell maintenance mechanisms in older age. Experimental studies and studies conducted on centenarians suggest that low growth hormone and IGF-1 levels contribute to longevity and may be therapeutic biomarkers.
• Epigenetics: DNA methylation is a method that offers an “epigenetic clock” to compare biological age with chronologic age. Higher epigenetic age was associated with increased mortality risk, breast cancer, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Therefore, it could also be a therapeutic biomarker.
• Metabolomics: Studying metabolomes facilitates the identification of the link between genetic polymorphisms and longevity, as most polymorphisms explain less than 0.5% of longevity variations.
• New translational strategy: It is common practice to treat each age-related disease individually. An alternative strategy would be to target the hallmarks of biological aging to prevent these diseases from developing. The rate of biological aging correlates with the speed of damage accumulation at the macromolecular, organelle, and cellular levels. It also affects the capacity of the body to repair this damage. The assessment of biomarkers would make possibile research into the effects of short- and long-term treatments that minimize damage and enhance resilience related to diseases common with aging.

New translational research

The report highlights two translational research models: the in-depth study of centenarians and the analysis of how immune aging makes older adults vulnerable to COVID-19. The impact of impaired immunity on aging became particularly evident during the pandemic. However, to home in on immunity as a therapeutic target and to better understand immune resilience, the specific nature of immune and biological deficits still need to be defined.

Metformin is among the therapeutic agents under investigation in cutting-edge clinical research. Its effect on aging will be studied in the Targeting Aging with Metformin (TAME) clinical trial. This trial is the first to study aging outcomes. The goal is to create a regulatory framework that future therapies can follow to achieve FDA approval.

There are three promising therapeutic platforms among the cutting-edge research studies. The first aims to produce adenosine triphosphate, levels of which decline dramatically with aging. The second aims to promote autophagy to remove cellular waste to treat neurodegenerative diseases. The third reprograms the epigenome to a younger state.

Research on mitochondrial dysfunction is relevant because it is highly involved in age-related diseases. Mitochondrial-derived peptides could potentially serve as biomarkers of mitochondrial function in aging studies and become promising therapeutic targets in age-related diseases. One of these peptides, humanin, has been demonstrated to exert protective effects on the heart, brain, and liver. Researchers observed that mitochondrial proteins are age-dependent and are suppressed by growth hormone and IGF-1. They also found that humanin levels are correlated with endothelial function. Data from animal studies have shown that sustained humanin levels are positively linked to longevity; these findings are mirrored in data from centenarians and their offspring, who have higher levels of humanin.

The formation of a Translational Geroscience Network composed of several scientists from various institutions should accelerate the application of this understanding. Despite the ongoing investigational and clinical studies, senolytics should not be regarded as extending life span or treating certain conditions, because their full safety profiles have not yet been elucidated.
 

Conclusion

Geroscience faces challenges in dealing with age-related problems. It is hoped that these challenges will be overcome through investigational and clinical studies on the mechanisms involved in aging. In-depth study of the interactions of underlying mechanisms of aging are needed to answer the following questions:

• Is there a hierarchical relationship among these mechanisms?
• Are there organ or cell-type differences in the interactions among these mechanisms?
• Is it possible to achieve a synergistic effect through combined interventions targeting several of the processes that drive aging?

It is complicated, but researchers are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

More than a quarter of patients who were shot by assailants with guns had their injuries mislabeled as “unintentional” at hospital discharge, according to a review of more than 1,200 cases at three U.S. trauma centers.

These coding inaccuracies could distort our understanding of gun violence in the United States and make it seem like accidental shootings are more common than they really are, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

“The systematic error in intent classification is not widely known or acknowledged by researchers in this field,” Philip J. Cook, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Susan T. Parker, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in an invited commentary about the new findings. “The bulk of all shootings, nonfatal and fatal together, are assaults, which is to say the result of one person intentionally shooting another. An accurate statistical portrait thus suggests that gun violence is predominantly a crime problem.”

In 2020, 79% of all homicides and 53% of all suicides involved firearms, the CDC reported. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, government data show.

For the new study, Matthew Miller, MD, ScD, of Northeastern University and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston, and his colleagues examined how International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes may misclassify the intent behind gunshot injuries.

Dr. Miller’s group looked at 1,227 incidents between 2008 and 2019 at three major trauma centers – Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Of those shootings, 837 (68.2%) involved assaults, 168 (13.5%) were unintentional, 124 (9.9%) were deliberate self-harm, and 43 (3.4%) were instances of legal intervention, based on the researchers’ review of medical records.

ICD codes at discharge, however, labeled 581 cases (47.4%) as assaults and 432 (35.2%) as unintentional.

The researchers found that 234 of the 837 assaults (28%) and 9 of the 43 legal interventions (20.9%) were miscoded as unintentional. This problem occurred even when the “medical narrative explicitly indicated that the shooting was an act of interpersonal violence,” such as a drive-by shooting or an act of domestic violence, the researchers reported.

Hospital trauma registrars, who detail the circumstances surrounding injuries, were mostly in agreement with the researchers.

Medical coders “would likely have little trouble characterizing firearm injury intent accurately if incentives were created for them to do so,” the authors wrote.

Trends and interventions

Separately, researchers published studies showing that gun violence tends to affect various demographics differently, and that remediating abandoned houses could help reduce gun crime.

Lindsay Young, of the University of Cincinnati, and Henry Xiang, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, analyzed rates of firearm deaths from 1981 to 2020.

They found that the rate of firearm-related homicide was five times higher among males than females, and the rate of suicide involving firearms was nearly seven times higher for men, they reported in PLOS ONE.

Black men were the group most affected by homicide, whereas White men were most affected by suicide, they found.

To see if fixing abandoned properties would improve health and reduce gun violence in low-income, Black neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Eugenia C. South, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial.

They randomly assigned abandoned properties in some areas to undergo full remediation (installing working windows and doors, cleaning trash, and weeding); trash cleanup and weeding only; or no intervention.

“Abandoned houses that were remediated showed substantial drops in nearby weapons violations (−8.43%), gun assaults (−13.12%), and to a lesser extent shootings (−6.96%),” the researchers reported.

The intervention targets effects of segregation that have resulted from “historical and ongoing government and private-sector policies” that lead to disinvestment in Black, urban communities, they wrote. Abandoned houses can be used to store firearms and for other illegal activity. They also can engender feelings of fear, neglect, and stress in communities, the researchers noted.

Dr. Miller’s study was funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research; coauthors disclosed corporate, government, and university grants. The full list of disclosures can be found with the original article. Editorialists Dr. Cook and Dr. Parker report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. South’s study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. South and some coauthors disclosed government grants.
 

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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