Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

Aspirin may be of specific benefit for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels, a new study has suggested.

The study analyzed data from the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) trial, which randomized 19,000 individuals aged 70 years or older without a history of cardiovascular disease to aspirin (100 mg/day) or placebo. While the main results, reported previously, showed no net benefit of aspirin in the overall population, the current analysis suggests there may be a benefit in individuals with raised Lp(a) levels.

jimdeli/Fotolia

Similar findings in the Women’s Health Study

Dr. Lacaze and colleagues point out that similar results have also been seen in another large aspirin primary prevention study – the Women’s Health Study (WHS).

The WHS compared aspirin 100 mg every other day with placebo in initially healthy younger women. Previously reported results showed that women carrying the rs3798220-C variant, associated with highly elevated Lp(a) levels, had a twofold higher risk of cardiovascular events than noncarrier women in the placebo group, but this risk was reduced in the aspirin group. And there was no increased risk of bleeding in women with elevated Lp(a).

“These results, in the absence of any other randomized controlled trial evidence or approved therapy for treating Lp(a)-associated risk, have been used by some physicians as justification for prescribing aspirin in patients with elevated Lp(a),” Dr. Lacaze and colleagues note.

“In the present study of the ASPREE trial population, our results were consistent with the WHS analysis, despite randomizing older individuals (both men and women),” they add.

They say this validation of the WHS result provides evidence that a very high-risk subgroup of individuals with highly elevated Lp(a) – those carrying the rs3798220-C allele – may benefit from low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Further, the benefits in this subgroup specifically may outweigh any bleeding risk.

But they point out that rs3798220-C carriers comprise only a small portion of all individuals with elevated Lp(a) in the general population, while the polygenic LPA-GRS explains about 60% of the variation in directly measured plasma Lp(a) levels and has the potential advantage of being able to identify a larger group of individuals at increased risk.

The researchers note, however, that it is not clear to what extent the LPA-GRS results add further evidence to suggest that individuals with elevated Lp(a), beyond rs3798220-C carriers, may be more likely to benefit from aspirin.

“If the benefit of aspirin extends beyond very high-risk rs3798220-C carriers alone, to the broader 20%-30% of individuals with elevated Lp(a), the potential utility of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events would increase substantially,” they say.
 

‘Very high clinical relevance’

In an accompanying editorial, Ana Devesa, MD, Borja Ibanez, MD, PhD, and Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, The National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid, say that: “[Dr.] Lacaze et al. are to be congratulated for a study of very high clinical relevance that represents a first indication for primary prevention for patients at high cardiovascular risk.”

They explain that the pathogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is believed to be a combination of prothrombotic and proatherogenic effects, and the current findings support the hypothesis that the prothrombotic mechanism of Lp(a) is mediated by platelet aggregation. 

This would explain the occurrence of thrombotic events in the presence of atherosclerosis in that elevated Lp(a) levels may induce platelet adhesion and aggregation to the activated atherosclerotic plaque, thus enhancing the atherothrombotic process. Moreover, activated platelets release several mediators that result in cell adhesion and attraction of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines, driving an inflammatory response and mediating atherosclerosis progression, they add.

The editorialists highlight the limitations of the study already acknowledged by the authors: The analysis used genotypes rather than elevated Lp(a) levels and included only those of European ancestry, meaning the results are difficult to extrapolate to other populations.

“The next steps in clinical practice should be defined, and there are still questions to be answered,” they conclude. “Will every patient benefit from antithrombotic therapies? Should all patients who have elevated Lp(a) levels be treated with aspirin?”

The ASPREE Biobank is supported by grants from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Monash University, Menzies Research Institute, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Lacaze is supported by a National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship.

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

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a rare second review of a new drug application, a Food and Drug Association advisory panel has voted to recommend approval of a novel drug to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

By a vote of 7-2, the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee reversed course on AMX0035 (Amylyx Pharmaceuticals), a combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol.

The panel previously voted 6-4 to reject the drug, ruling that data provided by Amylyx had failed to demonstrate that the survival benefit reported in the only clinical trial of AMX0035 so far was a direct result of the drug.

This time, two panelists who previously voted no were swayed by the drug maker’s new analysis of previously presented research, more than 1,300 public comments in support of the drug, supportive testimony from ALS patients and clinicians, and assurances from company executives that Amylyx would pull the drug from the market if results of an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial show the drug doesn’t work.

“As in March, today we have to have an internal dialogue between our scientific scrutiny and clinical compassion,” said Liana G. Apostolova, MD, from Indiana University, Indianapolis, who originally voted against the application.

“Today I also saw additional confirmatory evidence that was not unequivocally persuasive but was nonetheless reassuring,” Dr. Apostolova said. “Because of that I am voting in support of AMX0035.”
 

A rare second chance

ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that causes loss of motor control. It is rare, affecting about 30,000 people in the United States with another 5,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Most people with the disease die within 2 years of diagnosis.

The FDA has approved two therapies for ALS, but both have limited efficacy.

Typically, FDA approval requires two large studies or one study with a “very persuasive” effect on survival.

Amylyx’s application is based on a single study, the multicenter, two-phase CENTAUR trial. In that trial, 137 people with ALS received AMX0035 or placebo for 24 weeks.

Researchers found that patients receiving AMX0035 had a 25% slower decline in function, compared with the those taking placebo. A change of 20% or more is considered clinically meaningful.

The investigators also found a statistically significant median difference of 4.8 months in time to death, first hospitalization, or tracheostomy/permanent assisted ventilation in the group originally assigned to receive AMX0035 compared with the group originally assigned to receive placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .023).

In the panel’s previous vote against the drug application, members cited several issues with the study, concluding that it did not offer persuasive or robust evidence of efficacy. They also cited missing data assumptions in the primary analysis, issues of randomization and imbalances in concomitant use of riluzole and edaravone, the two FDA-approved drugs for ALS.

The FDA later requested additional information from Amylyx, delayed its final ruling on the new drug application to Sept. 29, and called for a second review meeting – a virtually unheard-of move.

An FDA review posted in advance of the meeting Sept. 29 had hinted at a different outcome. In that report, regulators said new data from Amylyx were not “sufficiently independent or persuasive” to establish effectiveness.

However, FDA officials in the meeting stressed the importance of considering unmet medical need in ALS in the panel’s decision-making process.

“Recognizing the substantial unmet medical need in ALS, we feel that it is important that the committee is afforded the opportunity to consider this new information, along with the information presented at the prior meeting, in that context,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the FDA Office of Neuroscience, said during the meeting.

Panelists heard additional data that Amylyx claims confirms the results of the CENTAUR study, including new analyses of the previously submitted survival data and new data from that study and an open-label extension.

They also provided new information on a biomarker data from a phase 2 study of AMX0035 to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

“I think we note the limitations of the analyses, but we still haven’t taken it off the table that they could be considered as confirmatory evidence and that’s why we’re here today,” said Teresa Buracchio, MD, director of the division of neurology for the FDA.

Two members of the panel who voted no in March stuck with that position at the Sept. 29 meeting.

“Unfortunately, I don’t believe the new evidence we’ve reviewed, while promising, combined with that prior evidence, constitutes substantial evidence of effectiveness,” said panelist Caleb Alexander, MD, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Baltimore.

Dr. Alexander, who also voted no in March, said that post hoc data presented at the meeting were not enough to assuage concerns that led him and others to reject the drug in March.
 

A challenging situation

Amylyx is currently leading the 48-week international, phase 3, placebo-controlled PHOENIX clinical trial of AMX0035. The study has enrolled about half of its 600-patient target.

“Undoubtedly, the results of the phase 3 study would be highly informative for a regulatory decision on the current ... review for AMX0035,” said Emily Freilich, MD, of the FDA.

However, results aren’t expected until late 2023 or early 2024, which “places the agency in a challenging situation of potentially making a regulatory decision that may not be subsequently confirmed by the results of the ongoing study.”

In June, Amylyx received conditional approval in Canada for the drug, but final approval depends on the outcome of the PHOENIX trial. The FDA does not offer a conditional approval track.

“If AMX0035 is not approved now, the FDA anticipated decision will likely happen in 2025, underscoring the critical importance of today’s outcome,” said Tammy Sarnelli, MPAHC, global head of Regulatory Affairs for Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.

If the FDA were to approve AMX0035 and results from the PHOENIX trial ultimately fail to prove efficacy, Justin Klee, co-CEO and cofounder of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said the company would withdraw the drug.

“To be clear, if PHOENIX is not successful, we will do what is right for patients, which includes voluntarily removing the product from the market,” Mr. Klee said.

Regardless of the company’s decision, FDA officials noted that the agency does have the ability to recall a drug from the market if studies show that it no longer meets requirements for approval.

“The FDA, with all due respect, significantly understates the complexity and likelihood of their pulling a product from the market,” Dr. Alexander said. “Whether or not they can ultimately pull a product from the market is no substitute for the evidentiary thresholds that are required for market access.”

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlights the unique drivers of burnout in academic cardiovascular medicine physicians and proposes system-level and personal interventions to support individual wellness in this setting.

“The future cardiovascular health of Americans relies on a well-trained and experienced physician workforce created by rigorous academic medical training,” the writing group says in Circulation.

“Cardiovascular physicians pursuing careers in academic medicine are critical to continuing this mission, which includes providing clinical care for common and increasingly complex disease, educating and training the next generation of physicians/health care workers, and pursuing scientific discovery and innovation to treat and cure disease,” write Elisa Bradley, Penn State Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Hershey, Pa., and coauthors.

Given the multitasking nature of academic medicine, exhaustion and burnout uniquely threaten future and early career academic physicians, they say.

Drivers of burnout in this setting include productivity-driven compensation models that force competition for time between clinical care and academics; the requirement for promotion in systems that have not evolved to consider combined clinical and academic expectations; and distinct expectations based on faculty pathway, such as grant funding and publications.

In addition, at the early career and fellow-in-training level, drivers of burnout also include significant changes in personal and family life, coupled with long hours and high clinical and research demands, as well as financial strain and educational debt.

Many of the drivers of burnout in academic medicine are external and beyond the control of a single individual. Therefore, proposed solutions must be largely at the level of organizations, institutions, and government, the writing group says.

These solutions include appropriate mentorship, goal planning, efficiency in the workplace, time management and time “protection,” and manageable schedules.

Professional satisfaction “should be a shared responsibility between the clinician and the institution. Each must adapt their values to find a middle ground that meets the needs of both, recognizing that health care is both personal and a business,” the writing group says.

“Interventions to support efficiency of practice and a culture of wellness span normalizing and supporting flexible work environments to enhancing clinical support,” they add.

To enhance flexible clinical environments, organizations should consider “float teams” to provide care to bridge gaps when a physician is not available, job sharing and flexible hours, and telemedicine, the writing group says.

At the individual level, academic cardiovascular professionals should build individualized strategies to combat fatigue and to promote wellness, focusing on self-care and healthy habits (adequate sleep, healthy nutrition, exercise, outside interests, meaningful social relationships), they advise.

With help, “young academicians can look forward to a fulfilling and long career in academic cardiovascular medicine,” they conclude.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with the development of anorexia nervosa in Canadian children and adolescents, data suggest.

Preliminary results of the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) indicate that the pandemic has been a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa in almost half of children and adolescents studied. The pandemic also has precipitated hospitalizations for anorexia in more than one-third of cases.

“Data globally, and certainly our data here in Canada, have shown a real increase in health care utilization with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,” study author Debra Katzman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “And when I talk about health care utilization, I’m talking about hospitalizations for eating disorders.”

The data were included in the 2021 results of the CPSP.
 

Focus on appearance

CPSP is a collaboration between the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Pediatric Society that consists of a network of 2,800 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists across Canada. The latest results include surveillance studies on 14 diseases and conditions, with data collected during various periods.

From April 2020 to May 2021, researchers identified 1,800 COVID-19 cases in children and collected detailed information on 1,456 of them, including 405 cases hospitalized with pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS). The median age of hospitalized cases was 3.2 years for SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5.4 years for PIMS.

Dr. Katzman and colleagues observed 118 first-time hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa between Sept. 1 and Dec. 31, 2021. More than 90% of reported cases were female, with 66% of verified cases in teens aged 14-17 years and the remainder in adolescents aged 11-13 years.

In 49% of cases, the reporting physician identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a precipitating factor in the development of anorexia nervosa. In 37% of cases, the reporting physician identified the pandemic as having precipitated the anorexia-related hospitalization.

Last year, a cross-sectional analysis of children in Canada reported that monthly hospitalizations for anorexia nervosa increased from 7.5 to 20 from March through November 2020. The monthly rate in the CPSP study was closer to 30 for first-time hospitalizations.

Dr. Katzman said that the findings about anorexia nervosa didn’t surprise her. “There was so much disruption and [so many] restrictions to young peoples’ daily routines – closures of schools and recreational activities – they lost regular connection with their peers, and they lost extracurricular and social activities,” she said. “That led to heightened anxiety and depression and really a lack of control.”

Adolescents and teens were also spending more time on social media than they were before the pandemic, she noted. “They were looking at themselves all the time, so they were getting preoccupied with their body image. There was a heightened focus on appearance, and I think that things like public-health mitigation strategies – things like hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing – may have impacted the psychological well-being of young people.”

The closure of outpatient facilities, long waiting lists to get into facilities that were opened, and “coronaphobia” about going to physicians’ offices and emergency departments compounded the problem, Dr. Katzman added.

The long-term effects of COVID and eating disorders in children are unknown, Dr. Katzman said. “This is sort of a wake-up call for the health care system that during times of stress or pandemics or crises, these kinds of things can happen, and we need to be prepared to provide the resources for vulnerable populations moving forward,” she said.
 

Heightened anxiety

Commenting on the data, Margaret Thew, APNP, director of the eating disorders program at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee, said that isolation due to school closures and negative social media messages created the “perfect storm” for eating disorders in adolescents and teenagers because of higher rates of anxiety and depression. Ms. Thew was not involved in the research.

The storm is not over yet, she said. “What everyone needs to keep in mind is that we still have this very heightened state of anxiety and depression ... for adolescents, teenagers, and preteens alike,” Ms. Thew said in an interview, “and we know that many of them are not coping with their anxiety very well.”

In her experience, since the start of the pandemic, the average age of pediatric patients with eating disorders declined from 16 to 15 years, and the youngest age declined from 12 to 11 years.

Overall, the CPSP results show that children are affected by mental health issues at an earlier age than before the pandemic, said Ms. Thew. “Years ago, we wouldn’t have thought that an 8-year-old needed to be screened for some of these risk factors, but now we’re definitely getting more younger children who are struggling, and I think it’s taking too long for them to get the care they need because it’s being overlooked,” she said.

The report was funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Canada, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Bethanys Hope Foundation, CHEO Research Institute, and Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba. Dr. Katzman and Ms. Thew have no relevant disclosures.

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

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

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

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

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

New guidelines highlight the role that integrative pain management techniques, such as massage, acupuncture, and music therapy, can play in relieving certain types of cancer pain in adults.

The recommendations, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, represent a joint effort between the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Integrative Oncology (SIO) to guide clinicians on how best to weave various nonpharmacologic pain management strategies into cancer care.

“Pain is a clinical challenge for many oncology patients and clinicians, and there’s a growing body of evidence showing that integrative therapies can be useful in pain management,” Heather Greenlee, ND, PhD, explained in a press release.

However, clear clinical guidance as to when and when not to use these approaches is lacking, said Dr. Greenlee, cochair of the SIO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.

Previous guidelines from ASCO on managing chronic cancer-related pain largely focused on diagnosing pain and on pharmacologic interventions, and they touched only on evidence related to nonpharmacologic options.

The new guideline “takes a deeper dive on the use of integrative therapies, which is important because clinicians and patients need to have access to the latest evidence-based information to make clinical decisions,” noted Jun H. Mao, MD, SIO-ASCO panel cochair.

In the guidance, the expert panel addresses two core questions: What mind-body therapies are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer, and what natural products are recommended for managing pain experienced by adult and pediatric patients diagnosed with cancer?

The panel conducted a literature search and identified 277 relevant studies. They included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2021 that evaluated outcomes related to pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. After reaching a consensus, the expert panel made recommendations on the basis of the strength of the available evidence.

Regarding modalities for which there was stronger evidence, the panel highlighted several recommendations regarding acupuncture, reflexology, hypnosis, and massage.

The panel determined, for instance, that acupuncture should be offered for aromatase-related joint pain in patients with breast cancer and that it can be offered for general or musculoskeletal pain from cancer. It recommended reflexology or acupressure for pain experienced during systemic therapy for cancer. Hypnosis is an option for patients experiencing procedural pain in cancer treatment or diagnostic workups, and massage is an option for pain experienced during palliative or hospice care or following breast cancer treatment.

These recommendations were considered moderate in strength and were based on intermediate levels of evidence that demonstrated that the benefits outweighed risks.

The panel added several recommendations it deemed to be weak in strength and that were based on low-quality evidence. These include Hatha yoga for patients experiencing pain after treatment for breast or head and neck cancers, and music therapy for patients experiencing pain from cancer surgery.

The experts also identified areas “potentially relevant to cancer care but needing more research,” such as the safety and efficacy of natural products, including omega-3 fatty acids and glutamine, and determined that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients.

“With improved oncology treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy, more patients diagnosed with cancer are living longer; therefore, pain and symptom management is critical for improving quality of life,” Dr. Mao, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview. “The SIO-ASCO clinical guideline will provide very timely recommendations for physicians to incorporate nonpharmacological treatments such as acupuncture and massage to improve pain management for patients impacted by cancer.”

However, clinical uptake of such treatments “is always a concern,” said panel cochair Eduardo Bruera, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. “We are hoping that by showing the growing evidence that is out there, health care systems will start hiring these kinds of practitioners and insurance systems will start covering these treatments, because more and more, these are being shown to be effective at managing pain for cancer populations,” Dr. Bruera said.

The SIO-ASCO panel’s work was supported by a grant from the Samueli Foundation to the Society for Integrative Oncology.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dupilumab for treating adults with prurigo nodularis, the first treatment approved for this indication, according to a press release from the manufacturers.

Recent studies of dupilumab (Dupixent), which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 and IL-13 pathways, show significant improvements in both itchiness and lesion counts, compared with placebo, in adults with prurigo nodularis (PN).

Approval was based on data from two randomized, controlled trials, PRIME and PRIME2, comparing dupilumab with placebo in 311 adults with uncontrolled PN, according to the release issued by Regeneron and Sanofi. Dupilumab is administered via a 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks after a loading dose.

The primary endpoint in PRIME and PRIME 2 was a clinically meaningful improvement in itch from baseline as measured by at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, a 0-10 scale, at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively. In the studies, 60% and 58% of patients treated with dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 24 weeks, compared with 18% and 20% of those on placebo. At 24 weeks, 48% and 45% of patients on dupilumab achieved clear or almost clear skin, another study endpoint, compared with 18% and 16% among those on placebo.* 

In PRIME and PRIME2, 44% and 37% of patients on dupilumab met the primary endpoint at 12 weeks versus16% and 22% among those on placebo.

Safety profiles were similar to those seen in other dupilumab studies, according to the release. The most common adverse events in the two studies combined were nasopharyngitis, reported in 5% of those on dupilumab versus 2% of those on placebo; conjunctivitis in 4% versus 1%; herpes infection in 3% versus 0; dizziness in 3% vs. 1%; muscle pain in 3% versus 1%; and diarrhea in 3% versus 1%.

Phase 3 data on dupilumab for PN were recently presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

A regulatory submission for dupilumab for treating PN is in progress at the European Medicines Agency, and submissions are planned to regulatory agencies in additional countries later in 2022, according to the company press release.

Dupilumab is currently approved in the United States for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months and older and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and in children and adults aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe eosinophilic or oral steroid-dependent asthma, as well as for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in adults, and for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and children aged 12 years and older, weighing at least 40 kg. Dupilumab is under clinical development for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria and bullous pemphigoid, according to the manufacturers.

The studies were supported by Regeneron and Sanofi.

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

*Correction, 9/30/22: An earlier version of this article misstated results of one endpoint. 

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

Lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), an investigational amyloid-clearing monoclonal antibody, reduced cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo and decreased amyloid levels in the brain of adults enrolled in a phase 3 trial.

The Clarity AD trial included 1,795 adults with early AD and confirmed amyloid pathology in the brain. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

Treatment with lecanemab met the primary endpoint, reducing clinical decline on the global cognitive and functional scale, the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), at 18 months by 27%, compared with placebo, with a treatment difference in the score change of –0.45 (P = .00005), the companies reported.

Starting as early as 6 months, across all time points, treatment with lecanemab yielded highly statistically significant changes in CDR-SB from baseline, compared with placebo (all P < .01).

The study also met all key secondary endpoints with highly statistically significant results, compared with placebo (P < .01).

Key secondary endpoints, in comparison with placebo, were change from baseline at 18 months in amyloid levels in the brain measured by amyloid PET, the AD Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale14 (ADAS-cog14), the AD Composite Score (ADCOMS), and the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS MCI-ADL).
 

Imaging abnormalities within expectations

Overall, rates of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) related to lecanemab were “within expectations,” the companies said.

The incidence of ARIA related to edema (ARIA-E) was 12.5% in the lecanemab group and 1.7% in the placebo group.

The incidence of symptomatic ARIA-E was 2.8% and 0.0%, respectively, and the rate of cerebral hemorrhage (ARIA-H) was 17.0% and 8.7%. The total incidence of ARIA (ARIA-E and/or ARIA-H) was 21.3% in the lecanemab group and 9.3% in the placebo group.

Full results of the Clarity AD trial will be presented in November at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Congress.
 

Incremental benefit

Responding to the findings, the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement that it “enthusiastically welcomes” the positive findings. It noted that these are “the most encouraging results in clinical trials treating the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s to date.

“For people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s, this treatment has the potential to change the course of the disease in a clinically meaningful way. These results indicate lecanemab may give people more time at or near their full abilities to participate in daily life, remain independent and make future health care decisions,” the Alzheimer’s Association added.

Also weighing in, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said in a release that “the combination of the biomarker change – reduced amyloid – plus slowing of cognitive decline in this study is encouraging news for the 57 million patients around the world living with Alzheimer’s.

“However, amyloid-clearing drugs will provide an incremental benefit at best, and there is still a pressing need for the next generation of drugs focused on other targets based on our knowledge of the biology of aging,” Dr. Fillit cautioned.

“We are optimistic about the future as many of these drugs are in development, with 75% of drugs in the pipeline now targeting nonamyloid pathways of neurodegeneration,” he added.

In July 2022, the Food and Drug Administration accepted Eisai’s biologics license application for lecanemab under the accelerated approval pathway and granted priority review. Lecanemab has a prescription Drugs User Fee Act action date of Jan. 6, 2023.

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

This transcript of Impact Factor with F. Perry Wilson has been edited for clarity.

It was 100 years ago when Leonard Thompson, age 13, received a reprieve from a death sentence. Young master Thompson had type 1 diabetes, a disease that was uniformly fatal within months of diagnosis. But he received a new treatment, insulin, from a canine pancreas. He would live 13 more years before dying at age 26 of pneumonia.

The history of type 1 diabetes since that time has been a battle on two fronts: First, the search for a cause of and cure for the disease; second, the effort to make the administration of insulin safer, more reliable, and easier.

The past 2 decades have seen a technological revolution in type 1 diabetes care, with continuous glucose monitors decreasing the need for painful finger sticks, and insulin pumps allowing for more precise titration of doses.

The dream, of course, has been to combine those two technologies, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps, to create so-called closed-loop systems – basically an artificial pancreas – that would obviate the need for any intervention on the part of the patient, save the occasional refilling of an insulin reservoir.

We aren’t there yet, but we are closer than ever.

Closed-loop systems for insulin delivery, like the Tandem Control IQ system, are a marvel of technology, but they are not exactly hands-free. Users need to dial in settings for their insulin usage, count carbohydrates at meals, and inform the system that they are about to eat those meals to allow the algorithm to administer an appropriate insulin dose.

The perceived complexity of these systems may be responsible for why there are substantial disparities in the prescription of closed-loop systems. Kids of lower socioeconomic status are dramatically less likely to receive these advanced technologies. Providers may feel that patients with lower health literacy or social supports are not “ideal” for these technologies, even though they lead to demonstrably better outcomes.

That means that easier might be better. And a “bionic pancreas,” as reported in an article from The New England Journal of Medicine, is exactly that.

Broadly, it’s another closed-loop system. The bionic pancreas integrates with a continuous glucose monitor and administers insulin when needed. But the algorithm appears to be a bit smarter than what we have in existing devices. For example, patients do not need to provide any information about their usual insulin doses – just their body weight. They don’t need to count carbohydrates at meals – just to inform the device when they are eating, and whether the meal is the usual amount they eat, more, or less. The algorithm learns and adapts as it is used. Easy.

And in this randomized trial, easy does it.

A total of 219 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the bionic pancreas or usual diabetes care, though it was required that control participants use a continuous glucose monitor. Participants were as young as 6 years old and up to 79 years old; the majority were White and had a relatively high household income. The mean A1c was around 7.8% at baseline.

By the end of the study, the A1c was significantly improved in the bionic pancreas group, with a mean of 7.3% vs. 7.7% in the usual-care group.

This effect was most pronounced in those with a higher A1c at baseline.

People randomized to the bionic pancreas also spent more time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

All in all, the technology that makes it easy to manage your blood sugar, well, made it easy to manage your blood sugar.

But new technology is never without its hiccups. Those randomized to the bionic pancreas had a markedly higher rate of adverse events (244 events in 126 people compared with 10 events in 8 people in the usual-care group.)

This is actually a little misleading, though. The vast majority of these events were hyperglycemic episodes due to infusion set failures, which were reportable only in the bionic pancreas group. In other words, the patients in the control group who had an infusion set failure (assuming they were using an insulin pump at all) would have just called their regular doctor to get things sorted and not reported it to the study team.

Nevertheless, these adverse events – not serious, but common – highlight the fact that good software is not the only key to solving the closed-loop problem. We need good hardware too, hardware that can withstand the very active lives that children with type 1 diabetes deserve to live.

In short, the dream of a functional cure to type 1 diabetes, a true artificial pancreas, is closer than ever, but it’s still just a dream. With iterative advances like this, though, the reality may be here before you know it.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript of Impact Factor with F. Perry Wilson has been edited for clarity.

It was 100 years ago when Leonard Thompson, age 13, received a reprieve from a death sentence. Young master Thompson had type 1 diabetes, a disease that was uniformly fatal within months of diagnosis. But he received a new treatment, insulin, from a canine pancreas. He would live 13 more years before dying at age 26 of pneumonia.

The history of type 1 diabetes since that time has been a battle on two fronts: First, the search for a cause of and cure for the disease; second, the effort to make the administration of insulin safer, more reliable, and easier.

The past 2 decades have seen a technological revolution in type 1 diabetes care, with continuous glucose monitors decreasing the need for painful finger sticks, and insulin pumps allowing for more precise titration of doses.

The dream, of course, has been to combine those two technologies, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps, to create so-called closed-loop systems – basically an artificial pancreas – that would obviate the need for any intervention on the part of the patient, save the occasional refilling of an insulin reservoir.

We aren’t there yet, but we are closer than ever.

Closed-loop systems for insulin delivery, like the Tandem Control IQ system, are a marvel of technology, but they are not exactly hands-free. Users need to dial in settings for their insulin usage, count carbohydrates at meals, and inform the system that they are about to eat those meals to allow the algorithm to administer an appropriate insulin dose.

The perceived complexity of these systems may be responsible for why there are substantial disparities in the prescription of closed-loop systems. Kids of lower socioeconomic status are dramatically less likely to receive these advanced technologies. Providers may feel that patients with lower health literacy or social supports are not “ideal” for these technologies, even though they lead to demonstrably better outcomes.

That means that easier might be better. And a “bionic pancreas,” as reported in an article from The New England Journal of Medicine, is exactly that.

Broadly, it’s another closed-loop system. The bionic pancreas integrates with a continuous glucose monitor and administers insulin when needed. But the algorithm appears to be a bit smarter than what we have in existing devices. For example, patients do not need to provide any information about their usual insulin doses – just their body weight. They don’t need to count carbohydrates at meals – just to inform the device when they are eating, and whether the meal is the usual amount they eat, more, or less. The algorithm learns and adapts as it is used. Easy.

And in this randomized trial, easy does it.

A total of 219 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the bionic pancreas or usual diabetes care, though it was required that control participants use a continuous glucose monitor. Participants were as young as 6 years old and up to 79 years old; the majority were White and had a relatively high household income. The mean A1c was around 7.8% at baseline.

By the end of the study, the A1c was significantly improved in the bionic pancreas group, with a mean of 7.3% vs. 7.7% in the usual-care group.

This effect was most pronounced in those with a higher A1c at baseline.

People randomized to the bionic pancreas also spent more time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

All in all, the technology that makes it easy to manage your blood sugar, well, made it easy to manage your blood sugar.

But new technology is never without its hiccups. Those randomized to the bionic pancreas had a markedly higher rate of adverse events (244 events in 126 people compared with 10 events in 8 people in the usual-care group.)

This is actually a little misleading, though. The vast majority of these events were hyperglycemic episodes due to infusion set failures, which were reportable only in the bionic pancreas group. In other words, the patients in the control group who had an infusion set failure (assuming they were using an insulin pump at all) would have just called their regular doctor to get things sorted and not reported it to the study team.

Nevertheless, these adverse events – not serious, but common – highlight the fact that good software is not the only key to solving the closed-loop problem. We need good hardware too, hardware that can withstand the very active lives that children with type 1 diabetes deserve to live.

In short, the dream of a functional cure to type 1 diabetes, a true artificial pancreas, is closer than ever, but it’s still just a dream. With iterative advances like this, though, the reality may be here before you know it.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript of Impact Factor with F. Perry Wilson has been edited for clarity.

It was 100 years ago when Leonard Thompson, age 13, received a reprieve from a death sentence. Young master Thompson had type 1 diabetes, a disease that was uniformly fatal within months of diagnosis. But he received a new treatment, insulin, from a canine pancreas. He would live 13 more years before dying at age 26 of pneumonia.

The history of type 1 diabetes since that time has been a battle on two fronts: First, the search for a cause of and cure for the disease; second, the effort to make the administration of insulin safer, more reliable, and easier.

The past 2 decades have seen a technological revolution in type 1 diabetes care, with continuous glucose monitors decreasing the need for painful finger sticks, and insulin pumps allowing for more precise titration of doses.

The dream, of course, has been to combine those two technologies, continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps, to create so-called closed-loop systems – basically an artificial pancreas – that would obviate the need for any intervention on the part of the patient, save the occasional refilling of an insulin reservoir.

We aren’t there yet, but we are closer than ever.

Closed-loop systems for insulin delivery, like the Tandem Control IQ system, are a marvel of technology, but they are not exactly hands-free. Users need to dial in settings for their insulin usage, count carbohydrates at meals, and inform the system that they are about to eat those meals to allow the algorithm to administer an appropriate insulin dose.

The perceived complexity of these systems may be responsible for why there are substantial disparities in the prescription of closed-loop systems. Kids of lower socioeconomic status are dramatically less likely to receive these advanced technologies. Providers may feel that patients with lower health literacy or social supports are not “ideal” for these technologies, even though they lead to demonstrably better outcomes.

That means that easier might be better. And a “bionic pancreas,” as reported in an article from The New England Journal of Medicine, is exactly that.

Broadly, it’s another closed-loop system. The bionic pancreas integrates with a continuous glucose monitor and administers insulin when needed. But the algorithm appears to be a bit smarter than what we have in existing devices. For example, patients do not need to provide any information about their usual insulin doses – just their body weight. They don’t need to count carbohydrates at meals – just to inform the device when they are eating, and whether the meal is the usual amount they eat, more, or less. The algorithm learns and adapts as it is used. Easy.

And in this randomized trial, easy does it.

A total of 219 participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to the bionic pancreas or usual diabetes care, though it was required that control participants use a continuous glucose monitor. Participants were as young as 6 years old and up to 79 years old; the majority were White and had a relatively high household income. The mean A1c was around 7.8% at baseline.

By the end of the study, the A1c was significantly improved in the bionic pancreas group, with a mean of 7.3% vs. 7.7% in the usual-care group.

This effect was most pronounced in those with a higher A1c at baseline.

People randomized to the bionic pancreas also spent more time in the target glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

All in all, the technology that makes it easy to manage your blood sugar, well, made it easy to manage your blood sugar.

But new technology is never without its hiccups. Those randomized to the bionic pancreas had a markedly higher rate of adverse events (244 events in 126 people compared with 10 events in 8 people in the usual-care group.)

This is actually a little misleading, though. The vast majority of these events were hyperglycemic episodes due to infusion set failures, which were reportable only in the bionic pancreas group. In other words, the patients in the control group who had an infusion set failure (assuming they were using an insulin pump at all) would have just called their regular doctor to get things sorted and not reported it to the study team.

Nevertheless, these adverse events – not serious, but common – highlight the fact that good software is not the only key to solving the closed-loop problem. We need good hardware too, hardware that can withstand the very active lives that children with type 1 diabetes deserve to live.

In short, the dream of a functional cure to type 1 diabetes, a true artificial pancreas, is closer than ever, but it’s still just a dream. With iterative advances like this, though, the reality may be here before you know it.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and hosts a repository of his communication work at www.methodsman.com. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.