TOPLINE:

Higher levels of some serum medium-chain fatty acids found in coconut oil, palm kernel oil, and milk products are associated with a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). This inverse relationship is more pronounced in individuals with a high genetic risk or physical inactivity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reporting a link between dietary medium-chain fatty acids and a reduced risk for T2D have been based on food intake questionnaires, but serum samples are likely to be a more precise and objective basis for understanding metabolic relationships.
• To assess the association between medium-chain fatty acids and T2D risk, the researchers conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective China Cardiometabolic Disease and Cancer Cohort Study.
• They included 1707 individuals who developed diabetes during a median follow-up of 3.03 years and added a propensity-matched normoglycemic control group for a total of 3414 individuals (mean age, 57.56 years; 59.4% women), all with normal glucose regulation at baseline.
• Researchers investigated associations of baseline levels of five serum medium-chain fatty acids — octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, decanoic acid, undecanoic acid, and lauric acid — between individuals with T2D and control participants and stratified by risk factors, including diabetes genetic susceptibility.
• The genetic risk scores were calculated as a weighted sum of 86 T2D-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms.

TAKEAWAY:

• In an inverse association, each standard deviation increase in the baseline serum levels of octanoic acid and nonanoic acid decreased the odds of T2D by 10% and 16%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98 and OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95, respectively; all P < .05).
• , with significant interactions observed for octanoic, nonanoic, and decanoic acids (P for interaction = .042, .034, and .037, respectively).
• Moreover, the negative relationship between octanoic acid and the risk for diabetes was stronger in those with a high genetic risk, with a significant interaction (P for interaction = .003).
• No significant associations were observed between the levels of decanoic, undecanoic, and lauric acids and the overall risk for incident diabetes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings generally support the protective effect of MCFAs [medium-chain fatty acids] but also emphasize the personalized approaches in improving serum MCFA profiles for T2D prevention, which could be tailored according to individuals’ genetic and lifestyle profiles,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaojing Jia, MD, and Hong Lin, PhD, of the Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s follow-up duration of 3 years was short, which may have compromised the statistical power of the analysis. The long-term effects of medium-chain fatty acids on the risk for diabetes may not be captured as they were assessed only at baseline. The study population was limited to Chinese adults older than 40 years, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to other ethnicities and age groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of some serum medium-chain fatty acids found in coconut oil, palm kernel oil, and milk products are associated with a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). This inverse relationship is more pronounced in individuals with a high genetic risk or physical inactivity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reporting a link between dietary medium-chain fatty acids and a reduced risk for T2D have been based on food intake questionnaires, but serum samples are likely to be a more precise and objective basis for understanding metabolic relationships.
• To assess the association between medium-chain fatty acids and T2D risk, the researchers conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective China Cardiometabolic Disease and Cancer Cohort Study.
• They included 1707 individuals who developed diabetes during a median follow-up of 3.03 years and added a propensity-matched normoglycemic control group for a total of 3414 individuals (mean age, 57.56 years; 59.4% women), all with normal glucose regulation at baseline.
• Researchers investigated associations of baseline levels of five serum medium-chain fatty acids — octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, decanoic acid, undecanoic acid, and lauric acid — between individuals with T2D and control participants and stratified by risk factors, including diabetes genetic susceptibility.
• The genetic risk scores were calculated as a weighted sum of 86 T2D-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms.

TAKEAWAY:

• In an inverse association, each standard deviation increase in the baseline serum levels of octanoic acid and nonanoic acid decreased the odds of T2D by 10% and 16%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98 and OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95, respectively; all P < .05).
• , with significant interactions observed for octanoic, nonanoic, and decanoic acids (P for interaction = .042, .034, and .037, respectively).
• Moreover, the negative relationship between octanoic acid and the risk for diabetes was stronger in those with a high genetic risk, with a significant interaction (P for interaction = .003).
• No significant associations were observed between the levels of decanoic, undecanoic, and lauric acids and the overall risk for incident diabetes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings generally support the protective effect of MCFAs [medium-chain fatty acids] but also emphasize the personalized approaches in improving serum MCFA profiles for T2D prevention, which could be tailored according to individuals’ genetic and lifestyle profiles,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaojing Jia, MD, and Hong Lin, PhD, of the Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s follow-up duration of 3 years was short, which may have compromised the statistical power of the analysis. The long-term effects of medium-chain fatty acids on the risk for diabetes may not be captured as they were assessed only at baseline. The study population was limited to Chinese adults older than 40 years, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to other ethnicities and age groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of some serum medium-chain fatty acids found in coconut oil, palm kernel oil, and milk products are associated with a reduced risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D). This inverse relationship is more pronounced in individuals with a high genetic risk or physical inactivity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reporting a link between dietary medium-chain fatty acids and a reduced risk for T2D have been based on food intake questionnaires, but serum samples are likely to be a more precise and objective basis for understanding metabolic relationships.
• To assess the association between medium-chain fatty acids and T2D risk, the researchers conducted a nested case-control study within the prospective China Cardiometabolic Disease and Cancer Cohort Study.
• They included 1707 individuals who developed diabetes during a median follow-up of 3.03 years and added a propensity-matched normoglycemic control group for a total of 3414 individuals (mean age, 57.56 years; 59.4% women), all with normal glucose regulation at baseline.
• Researchers investigated associations of baseline levels of five serum medium-chain fatty acids — octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, decanoic acid, undecanoic acid, and lauric acid — between individuals with T2D and control participants and stratified by risk factors, including diabetes genetic susceptibility.
• The genetic risk scores were calculated as a weighted sum of 86 T2D-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms.

TAKEAWAY:

• In an inverse association, each standard deviation increase in the baseline serum levels of octanoic acid and nonanoic acid decreased the odds of T2D by 10% and 16%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98 and OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95, respectively; all P < .05).
• , with significant interactions observed for octanoic, nonanoic, and decanoic acids (P for interaction = .042, .034, and .037, respectively).
• Moreover, the negative relationship between octanoic acid and the risk for diabetes was stronger in those with a high genetic risk, with a significant interaction (P for interaction = .003).
• No significant associations were observed between the levels of decanoic, undecanoic, and lauric acids and the overall risk for incident diabetes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings generally support the protective effect of MCFAs [medium-chain fatty acids] but also emphasize the personalized approaches in improving serum MCFA profiles for T2D prevention, which could be tailored according to individuals’ genetic and lifestyle profiles,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Xiaojing Jia, MD, and Hong Lin, PhD, of the Shanghai Institute of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s follow-up duration of 3 years was short, which may have compromised the statistical power of the analysis. The long-term effects of medium-chain fatty acids on the risk for diabetes may not be captured as they were assessed only at baseline. The study population was limited to Chinese adults older than 40 years, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to other ethnicities and age groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plasma phosphorylated (p)-tau217 testing can help identify preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, which could aid clinical trial recruitment.

Recruiting preclinical Alzheimer’s disease participants for clinical research is challenging, owing to a lack of symptoms and the high cost and invasiveness of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests and brain amyloid PET imaging.

Plasma p-tau217 has consistently shown high performance in detecting Alzheimer’s disease pathology in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, but there has been concern that it may have lower accuracy in cognitively unimpaired adults, said lead investigator Gemma Salvadó, PhD, with the Clinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

However, “our study shows that plasma p-tau217, alone or in combination with invasive tests, can be used accurately to assess amyloid positivity in cognitively unimpaired participants, to streamline the inclusion of these participants in preventive clinical trials,” she said. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC).
 

Correlation to CSF, PET Amyloid Status

The investigators assessed the clinical accuracy of plasma p-tau217 as a prescreening method in 2917 cognitively unimpaired adults (mean age, 67 years; 57% women) across 12 independent cohorts who had available plasma p-tau217 and amyloid beta PET imaging or CSF samples. 

They found that plasma p-tau217 levels correlated with amyloid beta CSF status and PET load. 

As a standalone test, plasma p-tau217 identified amyloid beta PET–positive cognitively normal adults with a positive predictive value of 80% or greater. 

The positive predictive value increased to 95% or greater when amyloid beta CSF or PET was used to confirm a positive plasma p-tau217 result. 

As a first step, plasma p-tau217 could significantly reduce the number of invasive tests performed because only individuals with a positive p-tau217 test would go on to PET imaging or CSF sampling, Dr. Salvadó told conference attendees. This may reduce trial recruitment costs and get more patients enrolled. 

Although the study had a large sample size, “these results should be replicated in independent studies, [in] more heterogeneous participants, and coming from the clinical setting instead of observational studies to avoid possible bias,” Dr. Salvadó added. 
 

A New Diagnostic Era 

Commenting on the research, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s particularly interesting about this study is that the researchers examined multiple cohorts of cognitively unimpaired individuals and “consistently” found that plasma p-tau217 could identify individuals with amyloid-positive PET and CSF with high accuracy. 

“This may reduce the need for more expensive and more invasive scans or lumbar punctures to confirm if an individual has the biology,” Dr. Snyder said. 

“Blood tests are revolutionizing Alzheimer’s detection, diagnosis and ultimately treatment,” added Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. 

He predicted that blood tests will “soon replace more invasive and costly PET scans as the standard of care and serve as the first line of defense in diagnosing the disease.”

“After many years of research, the field is in a place where we have novel biomarkers and diagnostics to support a diagnosis,” the way cholesterol is used to help detect heart disease, said Dr. Fillit. 

“The diagnostic framework for Alzheimer’s — an incredibly complex disease — is constantly evolving. As we usher in the new era of care, we are moving closer to the day when blood tests will be complemented by digital tools to provide precise and timely diagnoses and risk assessments backed by numerous data points, complementing existing cognitive tests,” he added. 

Funding for the study was provided by the Alzheimer’s Association, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Alzheimerfonden, and Strategic Research Area MultiPark. Dr. Salvadó, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Fillit have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plasma phosphorylated (p)-tau217 testing can help identify preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, which could aid clinical trial recruitment.

Recruiting preclinical Alzheimer’s disease participants for clinical research is challenging, owing to a lack of symptoms and the high cost and invasiveness of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests and brain amyloid PET imaging.

Plasma p-tau217 has consistently shown high performance in detecting Alzheimer’s disease pathology in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, but there has been concern that it may have lower accuracy in cognitively unimpaired adults, said lead investigator Gemma Salvadó, PhD, with the Clinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

However, “our study shows that plasma p-tau217, alone or in combination with invasive tests, can be used accurately to assess amyloid positivity in cognitively unimpaired participants, to streamline the inclusion of these participants in preventive clinical trials,” she said. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC).
 

Correlation to CSF, PET Amyloid Status

The investigators assessed the clinical accuracy of plasma p-tau217 as a prescreening method in 2917 cognitively unimpaired adults (mean age, 67 years; 57% women) across 12 independent cohorts who had available plasma p-tau217 and amyloid beta PET imaging or CSF samples. 

They found that plasma p-tau217 levels correlated with amyloid beta CSF status and PET load. 

As a standalone test, plasma p-tau217 identified amyloid beta PET–positive cognitively normal adults with a positive predictive value of 80% or greater. 

The positive predictive value increased to 95% or greater when amyloid beta CSF or PET was used to confirm a positive plasma p-tau217 result. 

As a first step, plasma p-tau217 could significantly reduce the number of invasive tests performed because only individuals with a positive p-tau217 test would go on to PET imaging or CSF sampling, Dr. Salvadó told conference attendees. This may reduce trial recruitment costs and get more patients enrolled. 

Although the study had a large sample size, “these results should be replicated in independent studies, [in] more heterogeneous participants, and coming from the clinical setting instead of observational studies to avoid possible bias,” Dr. Salvadó added. 
 

A New Diagnostic Era 

Commenting on the research, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s particularly interesting about this study is that the researchers examined multiple cohorts of cognitively unimpaired individuals and “consistently” found that plasma p-tau217 could identify individuals with amyloid-positive PET and CSF with high accuracy. 

“This may reduce the need for more expensive and more invasive scans or lumbar punctures to confirm if an individual has the biology,” Dr. Snyder said. 

“Blood tests are revolutionizing Alzheimer’s detection, diagnosis and ultimately treatment,” added Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. 

He predicted that blood tests will “soon replace more invasive and costly PET scans as the standard of care and serve as the first line of defense in diagnosing the disease.”

“After many years of research, the field is in a place where we have novel biomarkers and diagnostics to support a diagnosis,” the way cholesterol is used to help detect heart disease, said Dr. Fillit. 

“The diagnostic framework for Alzheimer’s — an incredibly complex disease — is constantly evolving. As we usher in the new era of care, we are moving closer to the day when blood tests will be complemented by digital tools to provide precise and timely diagnoses and risk assessments backed by numerous data points, complementing existing cognitive tests,” he added. 

Funding for the study was provided by the Alzheimer’s Association, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Alzheimerfonden, and Strategic Research Area MultiPark. Dr. Salvadó, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Fillit have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plasma phosphorylated (p)-tau217 testing can help identify preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, which could aid clinical trial recruitment.

Recruiting preclinical Alzheimer’s disease participants for clinical research is challenging, owing to a lack of symptoms and the high cost and invasiveness of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests and brain amyloid PET imaging.

Plasma p-tau217 has consistently shown high performance in detecting Alzheimer’s disease pathology in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, but there has been concern that it may have lower accuracy in cognitively unimpaired adults, said lead investigator Gemma Salvadó, PhD, with the Clinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

However, “our study shows that plasma p-tau217, alone or in combination with invasive tests, can be used accurately to assess amyloid positivity in cognitively unimpaired participants, to streamline the inclusion of these participants in preventive clinical trials,” she said. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC).
 

Correlation to CSF, PET Amyloid Status

The investigators assessed the clinical accuracy of plasma p-tau217 as a prescreening method in 2917 cognitively unimpaired adults (mean age, 67 years; 57% women) across 12 independent cohorts who had available plasma p-tau217 and amyloid beta PET imaging or CSF samples. 

They found that plasma p-tau217 levels correlated with amyloid beta CSF status and PET load. 

As a standalone test, plasma p-tau217 identified amyloid beta PET–positive cognitively normal adults with a positive predictive value of 80% or greater. 

The positive predictive value increased to 95% or greater when amyloid beta CSF or PET was used to confirm a positive plasma p-tau217 result. 

As a first step, plasma p-tau217 could significantly reduce the number of invasive tests performed because only individuals with a positive p-tau217 test would go on to PET imaging or CSF sampling, Dr. Salvadó told conference attendees. This may reduce trial recruitment costs and get more patients enrolled. 

Although the study had a large sample size, “these results should be replicated in independent studies, [in] more heterogeneous participants, and coming from the clinical setting instead of observational studies to avoid possible bias,” Dr. Salvadó added. 
 

A New Diagnostic Era 

Commenting on the research, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s particularly interesting about this study is that the researchers examined multiple cohorts of cognitively unimpaired individuals and “consistently” found that plasma p-tau217 could identify individuals with amyloid-positive PET and CSF with high accuracy. 

“This may reduce the need for more expensive and more invasive scans or lumbar punctures to confirm if an individual has the biology,” Dr. Snyder said. 

“Blood tests are revolutionizing Alzheimer’s detection, diagnosis and ultimately treatment,” added Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. 

He predicted that blood tests will “soon replace more invasive and costly PET scans as the standard of care and serve as the first line of defense in diagnosing the disease.”

“After many years of research, the field is in a place where we have novel biomarkers and diagnostics to support a diagnosis,” the way cholesterol is used to help detect heart disease, said Dr. Fillit. 

“The diagnostic framework for Alzheimer’s — an incredibly complex disease — is constantly evolving. As we usher in the new era of care, we are moving closer to the day when blood tests will be complemented by digital tools to provide precise and timely diagnoses and risk assessments backed by numerous data points, complementing existing cognitive tests,” he added. 

Funding for the study was provided by the Alzheimer’s Association, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, Alzheimerfonden, and Strategic Research Area MultiPark. Dr. Salvadó, Dr. Snyder, and Dr. Fillit have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Parkinson’s disease is safe but does not offer clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms, results of a new, randomized placebo-controlled trial show.

However, investigators discovered some interesting insights from the study, which they believe may help in designing future “improved, and hopefully successful, trials” with the intervention.

“Further studies — for example, through modified fecal microbiota transplantation approaches or bowel cleansing — are warranted,” they concluded. 

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology. 
 

Gut Dysfunction: An Early Symptom

Investigators led by Filip Scheperjans, MD, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, explained that gut dysfunction is a prevalent, early symptom in Parkinson’s disease and is associated with more rapid disease progression. 

Interventions targeting gut microbiota, such as FMT, have shown promising symptomatic, and potentially neuroprotective, effects in animal models of Parkinson’s disease. 

Although several randomized clinical trials suggest efficacy of probiotics for Parkinson’s disease-related constipation, only limited clinical information on FMT is available.

In the current trial, 48 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 35-75 years with mild to moderate symptoms and dysbiosis of fecal microbiota were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive FMT or placebo infused into the cecum via colonoscopy.  

All patients had whole-bowel lavage starting the day before the colonoscopy. Fecal microbiota transplantation was administered as a single-dose and without antibiotic pretreatment. 

Active treatment was a freeze-stored preparation of 30 g of feces from one of two donors who were healthy individuals without dysbiosis. The preparation was mixed with 150 mL of sterile physiologic saline and 20 mL of 85% glycerol for cryoprotection to improve viability of microbes. Placebo was the carrier solution alone, consisting of 180 mL of sterile physiologic saline and 20 mL of 85% glycerol.

The primary endpoint, a change in Parkinson’s disease symptoms as assessed on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) at 6 months, did not differ between the two study groups.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent in the FMT group, occurring in 16 patients (53%) versus one patient (7%) in the placebo group. But no major safety concerns were observed.

Secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses showed a greater increase in dopaminergic medication, which may indicate faster disease progression, but also improvement in certain motor and nonmotor outcomes in the placebo group. 

Microbiota changes were more pronounced after FMT, but dysbiosis status was reversed more frequently in the placebo group. 

The researchers noted that the apparent futility in this trial is in contrast to several previous small clinical studies of fecal transplant that have suggested the potential for improvement of Parkinson’s disease symptoms. 

In addition, encouraging results from the probiotics field suggest that an impact on motor and nonmotor Parkinson’s disease symptoms through gut microbiota manipulation is possible. 

The researchers raised the possibility that the placebo procedure was not an inert comparator, given the relatively strong and sustained gut microbiota alteration and dysbiosis conversion observed in the placebo group, and suggested that the colonic cleansing procedure may also have had some beneficial effect. 

“It seems possible that, after cleansing of a dysbiotic gut microbiota, recolonization leads to a more physiologic gut microbiota composition with symptom improvement in the placebo group. This warrants further exploration of modified fecal microbiota transplantation approaches and bowel cleansing in Parkinson’s disease,” they concluded. 
 

Distinct Gut Microbiome 

In an accompanying editorial, Timothy R. Sampson, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Cell Biology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, pointed out that dozens of independent studies have now demonstrated a distinct gut microbiome composition associated with Parkinson’s disease, and experimental data suggest that this has the capacity to incite inflammatory responses; degrade intestinal mucosa; and dysregulate a number of neuroactive and amyloidogenic molecules, which could contribute to the disease. 

He noted that three other small placebo-controlled studies of fecal transplantation in Parkinson’s disease showed slightly more robust responses in the active treatment group, including improvements in UPDRS scores and gastrointestinal symptoms.

However, these studies tested different FMT procedures, including lyophilized oral capsules given at different dosing frequencies and either nasojejunal or colonic transfusion following a standard bowel preparation.

In addition, there is no consensus on pretransplant procedures, such as antibiotics or bowel clearance, and the choice of donor microbiome is probably essential, because there may be certain microbes required to shift the entire community, Dr. Sampson wrote. 

Understanding how microbial contributions directly relate to Parkinson’s disease would identify individuals more likely to respond to peripheral interventions, and further exploration is needed to shed light on particular microbes that warrant targeting for either enrichment or depletion, he added. 

“Despite a lack of primary end point efficacy in this latest study, in-depth comparison across these studies may reveal opportunities to refine fecal microbiota transplantation approaches. Together, these studies will continue to refine the hypothesis of a microbial contribution to Parkinson’s disease and reveal new therapeutic avenues,” Dr. Sampson concluded.
 

‘Planting Grass in a Yard Full of Weeds’

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, New York, said that whether FMT are helpful remains to be determined. 

“The key question that needs to be solved is how to best perform these transplants. One issue is that you cannot plant grass when the yard is full of weeds. However, if you take too hard an approach killing the weeds — that is, with powerful antibiotics — you jeopardize the new grass, or in this case, the bacteria in the transplant. Solving that issue will be important as we consider whether this is effective or not.”

Dr. Beck added that there is still much to be learned from research into the gut microbiota. “I am hopeful with additional effort we will have answers soon.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Parkinson’s disease is safe but does not offer clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms, results of a new, randomized placebo-controlled trial show.

However, investigators discovered some interesting insights from the study, which they believe may help in designing future “improved, and hopefully successful, trials” with the intervention.

“Further studies — for example, through modified fecal microbiota transplantation approaches or bowel cleansing — are warranted,” they concluded. 

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology. 
 

Gut Dysfunction: An Early Symptom

Investigators led by Filip Scheperjans, MD, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, explained that gut dysfunction is a prevalent, early symptom in Parkinson’s disease and is associated with more rapid disease progression. 

Interventions targeting gut microbiota, such as FMT, have shown promising symptomatic, and potentially neuroprotective, effects in animal models of Parkinson’s disease. 

Although several randomized clinical trials suggest efficacy of probiotics for Parkinson’s disease-related constipation, only limited clinical information on FMT is available.

In the current trial, 48 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 35-75 years with mild to moderate symptoms and dysbiosis of fecal microbiota were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive FMT or placebo infused into the cecum via colonoscopy.  

All patients had whole-bowel lavage starting the day before the colonoscopy. Fecal microbiota transplantation was administered as a single-dose and without antibiotic pretreatment. 

Active treatment was a freeze-stored preparation of 30 g of feces from one of two donors who were healthy individuals without dysbiosis. The preparation was mixed with 150 mL of sterile physiologic saline and 20 mL of 85% glycerol for cryoprotection to improve viability of microbes. Placebo was the carrier solution alone, consisting of 180 mL of sterile physiologic saline and 20 mL of 85% glycerol.

The primary endpoint, a change in Parkinson’s disease symptoms as assessed on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) at 6 months, did not differ between the two study groups.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent in the FMT group, occurring in 16 patients (53%) versus one patient (7%) in the placebo group. But no major safety concerns were observed.

Secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses showed a greater increase in dopaminergic medication, which may indicate faster disease progression, but also improvement in certain motor and nonmotor outcomes in the placebo group. 

Microbiota changes were more pronounced after FMT, but dysbiosis status was reversed more frequently in the placebo group. 

The researchers noted that the apparent futility in this trial is in contrast to several previous small clinical studies of fecal transplant that have suggested the potential for improvement of Parkinson’s disease symptoms. 

In addition, encouraging results from the probiotics field suggest that an impact on motor and nonmotor Parkinson’s disease symptoms through gut microbiota manipulation is possible. 

The researchers raised the possibility that the placebo procedure was not an inert comparator, given the relatively strong and sustained gut microbiota alteration and dysbiosis conversion observed in the placebo group, and suggested that the colonic cleansing procedure may also have had some beneficial effect. 

“It seems possible that, after cleansing of a dysbiotic gut microbiota, recolonization leads to a more physiologic gut microbiota composition with symptom improvement in the placebo group. This warrants further exploration of modified fecal microbiota transplantation approaches and bowel cleansing in Parkinson’s disease,” they concluded. 
 

Distinct Gut Microbiome 

In an accompanying editorial, Timothy R. Sampson, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Cell Biology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, pointed out that dozens of independent studies have now demonstrated a distinct gut microbiome composition associated with Parkinson’s disease, and experimental data suggest that this has the capacity to incite inflammatory responses; degrade intestinal mucosa; and dysregulate a number of neuroactive and amyloidogenic molecules, which could contribute to the disease. 

He noted that three other small placebo-controlled studies of fecal transplantation in Parkinson’s disease showed slightly more robust responses in the active treatment group, including improvements in UPDRS scores and gastrointestinal symptoms.

However, these studies tested different FMT procedures, including lyophilized oral capsules given at different dosing frequencies and either nasojejunal or colonic transfusion following a standard bowel preparation.

In addition, there is no consensus on pretransplant procedures, such as antibiotics or bowel clearance, and the choice of donor microbiome is probably essential, because there may be certain microbes required to shift the entire community, Dr. Sampson wrote. 

Understanding how microbial contributions directly relate to Parkinson’s disease would identify individuals more likely to respond to peripheral interventions, and further exploration is needed to shed light on particular microbes that warrant targeting for either enrichment or depletion, he added. 

“Despite a lack of primary end point efficacy in this latest study, in-depth comparison across these studies may reveal opportunities to refine fecal microbiota transplantation approaches. Together, these studies will continue to refine the hypothesis of a microbial contribution to Parkinson’s disease and reveal new therapeutic avenues,” Dr. Sampson concluded.
 

‘Planting Grass in a Yard Full of Weeds’

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, New York, said that whether FMT are helpful remains to be determined. 

“The key question that needs to be solved is how to best perform these transplants. One issue is that you cannot plant grass when the yard is full of weeds. However, if you take too hard an approach killing the weeds — that is, with powerful antibiotics — you jeopardize the new grass, or in this case, the bacteria in the transplant. Solving that issue will be important as we consider whether this is effective or not.”

Dr. Beck added that there is still much to be learned from research into the gut microbiota. “I am hopeful with additional effort we will have answers soon.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Parkinson’s disease is safe but does not offer clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms, results of a new, randomized placebo-controlled trial show.

However, investigators discovered some interesting insights from the study, which they believe may help in designing future “improved, and hopefully successful, trials” with the intervention.

“Further studies — for example, through modified fecal microbiota transplantation approaches or bowel cleansing — are warranted,” they concluded. 

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology. 
 

Gut Dysfunction: An Early Symptom

Investigators led by Filip Scheperjans, MD, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, explained that gut dysfunction is a prevalent, early symptom in Parkinson’s disease and is associated with more rapid disease progression. 

Interventions targeting gut microbiota, such as FMT, have shown promising symptomatic, and potentially neuroprotective, effects in animal models of Parkinson’s disease. 

Although several randomized clinical trials suggest efficacy of probiotics for Parkinson’s disease-related constipation, only limited clinical information on FMT is available.

In the current trial, 48 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 35-75 years with mild to moderate symptoms and dysbiosis of fecal microbiota were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive FMT or placebo infused into the cecum via colonoscopy.  

All patients had whole-bowel lavage starting the day before the colonoscopy. Fecal microbiota transplantation was administered as a single-dose and without antibiotic pretreatment. 

Active treatment was a freeze-stored preparation of 30 g of feces from one of two donors who were healthy individuals without dysbiosis. The preparation was mixed with 150 mL of sterile physiologic saline and 20 mL of 85% glycerol for cryoprotection to improve viability of microbes. Placebo was the carrier solution alone, consisting of 180 mL of sterile physiologic saline and 20 mL of 85% glycerol.

The primary endpoint, a change in Parkinson’s disease symptoms as assessed on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) at 6 months, did not differ between the two study groups.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent in the FMT group, occurring in 16 patients (53%) versus one patient (7%) in the placebo group. But no major safety concerns were observed.

Secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses showed a greater increase in dopaminergic medication, which may indicate faster disease progression, but also improvement in certain motor and nonmotor outcomes in the placebo group. 

Microbiota changes were more pronounced after FMT, but dysbiosis status was reversed more frequently in the placebo group. 

The researchers noted that the apparent futility in this trial is in contrast to several previous small clinical studies of fecal transplant that have suggested the potential for improvement of Parkinson’s disease symptoms. 

In addition, encouraging results from the probiotics field suggest that an impact on motor and nonmotor Parkinson’s disease symptoms through gut microbiota manipulation is possible. 

The researchers raised the possibility that the placebo procedure was not an inert comparator, given the relatively strong and sustained gut microbiota alteration and dysbiosis conversion observed in the placebo group, and suggested that the colonic cleansing procedure may also have had some beneficial effect. 

“It seems possible that, after cleansing of a dysbiotic gut microbiota, recolonization leads to a more physiologic gut microbiota composition with symptom improvement in the placebo group. This warrants further exploration of modified fecal microbiota transplantation approaches and bowel cleansing in Parkinson’s disease,” they concluded. 
 

Distinct Gut Microbiome 

In an accompanying editorial, Timothy R. Sampson, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Cell Biology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, pointed out that dozens of independent studies have now demonstrated a distinct gut microbiome composition associated with Parkinson’s disease, and experimental data suggest that this has the capacity to incite inflammatory responses; degrade intestinal mucosa; and dysregulate a number of neuroactive and amyloidogenic molecules, which could contribute to the disease. 

He noted that three other small placebo-controlled studies of fecal transplantation in Parkinson’s disease showed slightly more robust responses in the active treatment group, including improvements in UPDRS scores and gastrointestinal symptoms.

However, these studies tested different FMT procedures, including lyophilized oral capsules given at different dosing frequencies and either nasojejunal or colonic transfusion following a standard bowel preparation.

In addition, there is no consensus on pretransplant procedures, such as antibiotics or bowel clearance, and the choice of donor microbiome is probably essential, because there may be certain microbes required to shift the entire community, Dr. Sampson wrote. 

Understanding how microbial contributions directly relate to Parkinson’s disease would identify individuals more likely to respond to peripheral interventions, and further exploration is needed to shed light on particular microbes that warrant targeting for either enrichment or depletion, he added. 

“Despite a lack of primary end point efficacy in this latest study, in-depth comparison across these studies may reveal opportunities to refine fecal microbiota transplantation approaches. Together, these studies will continue to refine the hypothesis of a microbial contribution to Parkinson’s disease and reveal new therapeutic avenues,” Dr. Sampson concluded.
 

‘Planting Grass in a Yard Full of Weeds’

Commenting on the research, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Parkinson’s Foundation, New York, said that whether FMT are helpful remains to be determined. 

“The key question that needs to be solved is how to best perform these transplants. One issue is that you cannot plant grass when the yard is full of weeds. However, if you take too hard an approach killing the weeds — that is, with powerful antibiotics — you jeopardize the new grass, or in this case, the bacteria in the transplant. Solving that issue will be important as we consider whether this is effective or not.”

Dr. Beck added that there is still much to be learned from research into the gut microbiota. “I am hopeful with additional effort we will have answers soon.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib were independently associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with palbociclib in a real-world comparison of the agents as first line treatment, along with endocrine therapy (ET), for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.

“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”

The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.

A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
 

Baseline imbalance

Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.

The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.

After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.

Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).

“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
 

Justifying adjustment

Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.

Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.

“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.

“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”

Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.

“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.

“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.

The CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib were independently associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with palbociclib in a real-world comparison of the agents as first line treatment, along with endocrine therapy (ET), for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.

“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”

The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.

A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
 

Baseline imbalance

Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.

The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.

After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.

Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).

“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
 

Justifying adjustment

Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.

Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.

“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.

“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”

Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.

“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.

“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.

The CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib were independently associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with palbociclib in a real-world comparison of the agents as first line treatment, along with endocrine therapy (ET), for patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Lead investigator Claudio Vernieri, MD, PhD, presented these findings of the PALMARES-2 study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Along with different safety profiles, drug-drug interactions, and costs of the three available CDK4/6 inhibitor molecules, our efficacy data may help clinicians and patients in choosing the most appropriate CDK4/6 inhibitor in specific clinical contexts,” Dr. Vernieri, who is from the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy, said during the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with ET, are the standard of care as first line treatment for this population, noted Dr. Vernieri. However, their efficacy has never been directly compared in a large clinical trial.

“Since these compounds have different pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety profiles, costs, and drug-drug interactions, identifying which of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors may be more effective in specific clinical contexts is a highly clinically relevant issue,” he said. “Real-world data represent a key source to perform direct comparisons.”

The PALMARES-2 study was a retrospective, multicenter, population-based study, in 18 Italian cancer centers. Its two main objectives were to compare the real-world PFS of abemaciclib versus ribociclib versus palbociclib, in combination with ET, in the whole study cohort, as well as in various subgroups including patients with endocrine-resistant disease, luminal B-like disease, or in premenopausal women.

A total of 1,850 patients (median age, 63 years) were enrolled between January 1, 2016 and September 1, 2023, with 750 (40.6%) receiving palbociclib, and 676 (36.5%) and 424 (22.9%) receiving ribociclib and abemaciclib, respectively.
 

Baseline imbalance

Importantly, there were significant imbalances in baseline characteristics of the patients, with those receiving abemaciclib being more likely to have endocrine-resistant disease, low progesterone receptor expression, and liver metastasis, and less likely to have de novo metastatic disease, compared with other patients, said Dr. Vernieri.

The analysis showed that across the entire cohort, the median real-world PFS and overall survival (OS) were 34.7 months and 66.6 months, respectively, by a January 1, 2024, data cutoff date. “I believe that the overall survival data are still immature to make a definitive conclusion,” he commented, noting that at enrollment only about half of patients had undergone disease progression, and at the close of the study only about 25% had died.

After adjusting for clinically relevant patient- and tumor-related covariates, “we found that both abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib, whereas we did not find statistically significant differences between abemaciclib and ribociclib,” he reported.

Specifically, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS was 0.71 for abemaciclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .005), 0.81 for ribociclib versus palbociclib (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .048), and 0.91 for abemaciclib versus ribociclib (95% CI, 0.70-1.19; P = .505).

“Regarding subgroup analysis, we found that abemaciclib and ribociclib were more effective than palbociclib in patients with endocrine-resistant or luminal B-like disease, as well as in premenopausal women. Abemaciclib was superior to palbociclib in patients with poorer ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group] performance status and to both palbociclib and ribociclib in patients with de novo metastatic disease. Both ribociclib and abemaciclib showed a trend toward higher efficacy in patients with liver metastases. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in patients treated with ribociclib. And finally, the three CDK4/6 inhibitors were similarly effective in patients who were older or at bone-only disease,” he concluded.
 

Justifying adjustment

Speaking during the audience question period Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, from Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said he preferred unadjusted results when examining real-world data, “because that’s the benefit,” and he questioned why the researchers had adjusted their numbers.

Dr. Vernieri explained that the adjustments were made to account for the important imbalances in the baseline characteristics of the patients.

“When we plotted unadjusted curves, we did not find statistically significant differences between these three drugs, only a trend toward the direction that I showed you today,” he said. “However, as you saw from the tables showing the characteristics of patients, there were important imbalances in terms of important prognostic factors in the three patient cohorts. So, I think that, for this kind of data and based on this level of imbalance, adjustment is necessary.

“To reinforce our conclusions, what we did was also to perform a propensity score match–based analysis,” Dr. Vernieri continued. “I did not have the time to show the results today, but these data were fully in line with the study conclusions. And we also performed a backward selection of variables. So, we basically selected variables more likely to be associated with patient prognosis. And also those models confirm the study conclusion. So I think the conclusions are quite solid.”

Dr. Del Priore, an adjunct professor of obstetrics and gynecology with a specialty in oncology, on the other hand, said he was not convinced that any of the drugs might be better or worse in the actual population treated.

“I still maintain that unadjusted real-world data should be presented and then only a limited adjusted analysis performed using the most unbalanced variables,” he said. “To do more elaborate adjustments may falsely imply a difference in drug choice and outcomes which never should be the conclusion with observational studies. Instead, the conclusions should be that, with typical use, the following similarities in PFS and OS were observed. Then point out how drug choice and important prognostic variables might be linked, thus limiting the generalizable conclusions even further.

“I would conclude that prospective studies should balance for the variables used in the PALMARES-2 analyses, which actually may have been chosen for adjustment post hoc,” Dr. Del Priore said.

The study was funded by the Italian Association for Cancer Research, the European Research Council, the Ministero della Salute, the Scientific Directorate of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Giuliani’s Foundation and Roche. Dr. Vernieri reported consulting or advisory roles with Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureau roles with Accademia Nazionale Di Medicina (ACCMED), Istituto Gentili, Lilly and Novartis; and research funding from Roche. Dr. Del Priore reported no conflicts of interest and disclosed that he is chief medical officer at BriaCell.

PHILADELPHIA — Amyloid beta (Abeta) and tau protein blood biomarkers are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics, new research showed.

Accurate early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is important because two monoclonal antibodies donanemab (Kisunla) and lecanemab (Leqembi) are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. However, the use of these agents requires amyloid confirmation.

A key finding of the study was that primary care physicians had a diagnostic accuracy of 61%, and dementia specialists had an accuracy of 73%, after completing standard clinical evaluations and before seeing results of the blood test or other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, while the blood test used in the study had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“This underscores the potential improvement in diagnostic accuracy, especially in primary care, when implementing such a blood test,” said study investigator Sebastian Palmqvist, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at Lund University, Lund, and a consultant at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. “It also highlights the challenges in accurately identifying Alzheimer’s disease based solely on clinical evaluation and cognitive testing, even for specialists.”

The findings were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

The study included two cohorts from primary and secondary care clinics in Sweden. Researchers analyzed plasma samples together at one time point in a single batch.

It also included two cohorts from Swedish primary and secondary care clinics where the plasma samples were analyzed prospectively (biweekly) in batches throughout the enrollment period, which more closely resembles clinical practice.

Primary care physicians and dementia specialists documented whether they believed their patients had Alzheimer’s disease pathology, basing the diagnoses on the standard evaluation that includes clinical examination, cognitive testing, and a CT scan prior to seeing any Alzheimer’s disease biomarker results.

They reported their certainty of the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology on a scale from 0 (not at all certain) to 10 (completely certain).

Plasma analyses were performed by personnel blinded to all clinical or biomarker data. Mass spectrometry assays were used to analyze Abeta42, Abeta40, phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217), and non–p-tau217.

Biomarkers used in the study included the percentage of plasma p-tau217, which is the ratio of p-tau217 relative to non–p-tau217, and the Abeta42 to Abeta40 ratio (the amyloid probability score 2 [APS2]). Researchers determined p-tau217 alone and when combined with the APS2.

The study included 1213 patients with cognitive symptoms — mean age 74.2 years and 48% women. Researchers applied biomarker cutoff values to the primary care cohort (n = 307) and the secondary care cohort (n = 300) and then evaluated the blood test prospectively in the primary care cohort (n = 208) and the secondary care cohort (n = 398).

The blood biomarker cutoff value was set at 90% specificity for Alzheimer’s disease pathology (the 1 cutoff-value approach). A 2 cutoff-value approach (using 1 upper and 1 lower cutoff value) was also used with values corresponding to 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity.

The primary outcome was presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. A positive finding of the Abeta biomarker was defined according to the FDA-approved cutoff value (≤ 0.072). A positive finding of the tau biomarker was defined as a p-tau217 level > 11.42 pg/mL in cerebrospinal fluid.

Researchers calculated the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy, as well as area under the curve (AUC) values.
 

Accuracy in Specialty Versus Primary Care

When the plasma samples were analyzed in a single batch in the primary care cohort, the AUC was 0.97 when the APS2 was used. In the secondary care cohort, the AUC was 0.96 when the APS2 was used.

When plasma samples were analyzed prospectively (biweekly) in the primary care cohort, the AUC was 0.96 when the APS2 was used. In the secondary care cohort, the AUC was 0.97 when the APS2 was used.

The 2 cutoff-value approach achieved PPVs of 97%-99% in patients with cognitive impairment, which is the target population of currently available antiamyloid treatments.

Although NPVs were slightly lower in these patients (87%-92% using the APS2), “we argue that a very high positive predictive value is probably more important in diagnosing patients as having Alzheimer’s disease, especially before initiating costly and burdensome antiamyloid treatment,” the investigators noted.

The PPVs were less than optimal for accurate identification of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in patients with subjective cognitive decline regardless of the cutoff-value approach used. The researchers pointed out that this could be a disadvantage for clinical trials that include patients with presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease but not in clinical practice because there are no clinical criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease at the subjective cognitive decline stage.

The NPVs were higher in patients with subjective cognitive decline (91%-94% for the APS2 or percentage of p-tau217 alone). This indicates the blood test would be more useful for ruling out underlying Alzheimer’s disease when only subtle symptoms are present, the researchers noted.

As for doctors identifying clinical Alzheimer’s disease, primary care physicians had a diagnostic accuracy of 61% (95% CI, 53%-69%) versus 91% (95% CI, 86%-96%) using the APS2. Dementia specialists had a diagnostic accuracy of 73% (95% CI, 68%-79%) versus 91% (95% CI, 86%-95%) using the APS2.

In the overall population, the diagnostic accuracy using the APS2 (90%; 95% CI, 88%-92%) was not different from that using the percentage of p-tau217 alone (90%; 95% CI, 88%-91%).

Very little was known about how a blood test would perform in a primary care setting, said Dr. Palmqvist. “Seeing that the test was just as accurate in primary care (about 90%) as it was in secondary care is really encouraging, especially since primary care is the first, and often final, point of entry into the healthcare system for cognitive evaluations.”

He said he was surprised the biomarkers performed so well in prospective, biweekly analyses throughout the study. “Previous studies have only demonstrated their effectiveness when all collected samples are analyzed at a single time point, which does not reflect how a blood test is used in clinical practice.”

He added that he was surprised that the tests were just as accurate in primary care as in a memory clinic setting with referred patients. This, despite older age and higher prevalence of comorbidities in primary care, such as chronic kidney disease (present in 26% of the primary care cohort), can be a confounding factor causing increased concentrations of p-tau217.
 

Next Steps

The diagnostic accuracy of the blood tests is on par with FDA-cleared cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, noted the investigators, led by senior author Oskar Hansson, MD, PhD, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

As blood tests are “more time effective, cost effective, and convenient” for patients, “they could also potentially replace cerebrospinal fluid tests and PET,” they added.

Dr. Palmqvist emphasized that these tests should not be used as stand-alone diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s disease but should complement the standard clinical evaluation that includes cognitive testing and a thorough interview with the patient and a spouse or relative.

“This is crucial because Alzheimer’s disease pathology can be asymptomatic for many years, and cognitive symptoms in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease pathology may primarily result from other conditions. Misinterpreting a positive Alzheimer’s disease blood test could lead to underdiagnosis of common non–Alzheimer’s disease conditions.”

With new antiamyloid treatments possibly slowing disease progression by 30%-40% when initiated early on, a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease could lead to more people receiving an accurate and earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Palmqvist. “This could potentially result in a better response to treatment. Results from drug trials clearly indicate that the earlier treatment begins, the more effectively it can slow disease progression.”

The test used in the study is already available in the United States, the investigators said, and a similar test will be accessible in Sweden within a few months. “However, the rollout will probably be gradual and will depend on how international and national guidelines recommend their use, so developing these guidelines will be a crucial next step for widespread implementation, particularly in primary care,” said Dr. Palmqvist.

He also underlined the importance of replicating the findings in more diverse populations. “This will help ensure the tests’ reliability and effectiveness across various demographic and clinical contexts.”

An important next research step is to examine how implementing a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease affects patient care. “This includes looking at changes in management, such as referrals, other examinations, and the initiation of appropriate treatments,” said Dr. Palmqvist.

Another study presented at the meeting showed that a highly accurate blood test could significantly reduce diagnostic wait times.
 

Convincing Research

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen Salloway, MD, Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, and colleagues said the study “makes the case convincingly that highly sensitive blood measures of Alzheimer’s disease can be integrated into the clinical decision-making process, including in the primary care setting.”

These tests, they wrote, “can be used to enhance the ability of clinicians to accurately identify individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid.”

A key limitation of the study was the lack of diversity in the study sample. This makes it difficult to generalize the results across other ethnic and racial groups, the editorialists noted. Plasma assays for Alzheimer’s disease in the United States will require approval from the FDA and coverage by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to be widely adopted.

The editorialists also pointed out that advances in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease will require important changes to healthcare models, including providing additional resources and staffing.

The study was supported by the Alzheimer’s Association, National Institute on Aging, European Research Council, Swedish Research Council, the GHR Foundation, and other groups. The study was conducted as an academic collaboration between Lund University and C2N Diagnostics in the United States. Lund University or its affiliated researchers received no funding or compensation from C2N Diagnostics. C2N Diagnostics performed the plasma analyses blinded to any biomarker or clinical data and had no role in the statistical analysis or results. Dr. Palmqvist reported receiving institutional research support from ki:elements, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals and consultancy or speaker fees from BioArctic, Biogen, Esai, Eli Lilly, and Roche. Dr. Hansson reported receiving personal fees from AC Immune, ALZpath, BioArctic, Biogen, Cerveau, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fujirebio, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, and Siemens and institutional research support from ADX, AVID Radiopharmaceuticals, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Salloway reported receiving grants from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, Genentech, Eisai, and Novartis; personal fees from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, Genentech, Eisai, Novo Nordisk, Prothena, AbbVie, Acumen, and Kisbee; and nonfinancial support (travel expenses for conference attendance) from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, and Acumen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Amyloid beta (Abeta) and tau protein blood biomarkers are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics, new research showed.

Accurate early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is important because two monoclonal antibodies donanemab (Kisunla) and lecanemab (Leqembi) are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. However, the use of these agents requires amyloid confirmation.

A key finding of the study was that primary care physicians had a diagnostic accuracy of 61%, and dementia specialists had an accuracy of 73%, after completing standard clinical evaluations and before seeing results of the blood test or other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, while the blood test used in the study had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“This underscores the potential improvement in diagnostic accuracy, especially in primary care, when implementing such a blood test,” said study investigator Sebastian Palmqvist, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at Lund University, Lund, and a consultant at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. “It also highlights the challenges in accurately identifying Alzheimer’s disease based solely on clinical evaluation and cognitive testing, even for specialists.”

The findings were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

The study included two cohorts from primary and secondary care clinics in Sweden. Researchers analyzed plasma samples together at one time point in a single batch.

It also included two cohorts from Swedish primary and secondary care clinics where the plasma samples were analyzed prospectively (biweekly) in batches throughout the enrollment period, which more closely resembles clinical practice.

Primary care physicians and dementia specialists documented whether they believed their patients had Alzheimer’s disease pathology, basing the diagnoses on the standard evaluation that includes clinical examination, cognitive testing, and a CT scan prior to seeing any Alzheimer’s disease biomarker results.

They reported their certainty of the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology on a scale from 0 (not at all certain) to 10 (completely certain).

Plasma analyses were performed by personnel blinded to all clinical or biomarker data. Mass spectrometry assays were used to analyze Abeta42, Abeta40, phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217), and non–p-tau217.

Biomarkers used in the study included the percentage of plasma p-tau217, which is the ratio of p-tau217 relative to non–p-tau217, and the Abeta42 to Abeta40 ratio (the amyloid probability score 2 [APS2]). Researchers determined p-tau217 alone and when combined with the APS2.

The study included 1213 patients with cognitive symptoms — mean age 74.2 years and 48% women. Researchers applied biomarker cutoff values to the primary care cohort (n = 307) and the secondary care cohort (n = 300) and then evaluated the blood test prospectively in the primary care cohort (n = 208) and the secondary care cohort (n = 398).

The blood biomarker cutoff value was set at 90% specificity for Alzheimer’s disease pathology (the 1 cutoff-value approach). A 2 cutoff-value approach (using 1 upper and 1 lower cutoff value) was also used with values corresponding to 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity.

The primary outcome was presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. A positive finding of the Abeta biomarker was defined according to the FDA-approved cutoff value (≤ 0.072). A positive finding of the tau biomarker was defined as a p-tau217 level > 11.42 pg/mL in cerebrospinal fluid.

Researchers calculated the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy, as well as area under the curve (AUC) values.
 

Accuracy in Specialty Versus Primary Care

When the plasma samples were analyzed in a single batch in the primary care cohort, the AUC was 0.97 when the APS2 was used. In the secondary care cohort, the AUC was 0.96 when the APS2 was used.

When plasma samples were analyzed prospectively (biweekly) in the primary care cohort, the AUC was 0.96 when the APS2 was used. In the secondary care cohort, the AUC was 0.97 when the APS2 was used.

The 2 cutoff-value approach achieved PPVs of 97%-99% in patients with cognitive impairment, which is the target population of currently available antiamyloid treatments.

Although NPVs were slightly lower in these patients (87%-92% using the APS2), “we argue that a very high positive predictive value is probably more important in diagnosing patients as having Alzheimer’s disease, especially before initiating costly and burdensome antiamyloid treatment,” the investigators noted.

The PPVs were less than optimal for accurate identification of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in patients with subjective cognitive decline regardless of the cutoff-value approach used. The researchers pointed out that this could be a disadvantage for clinical trials that include patients with presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease but not in clinical practice because there are no clinical criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease at the subjective cognitive decline stage.

The NPVs were higher in patients with subjective cognitive decline (91%-94% for the APS2 or percentage of p-tau217 alone). This indicates the blood test would be more useful for ruling out underlying Alzheimer’s disease when only subtle symptoms are present, the researchers noted.

As for doctors identifying clinical Alzheimer’s disease, primary care physicians had a diagnostic accuracy of 61% (95% CI, 53%-69%) versus 91% (95% CI, 86%-96%) using the APS2. Dementia specialists had a diagnostic accuracy of 73% (95% CI, 68%-79%) versus 91% (95% CI, 86%-95%) using the APS2.

In the overall population, the diagnostic accuracy using the APS2 (90%; 95% CI, 88%-92%) was not different from that using the percentage of p-tau217 alone (90%; 95% CI, 88%-91%).

Very little was known about how a blood test would perform in a primary care setting, said Dr. Palmqvist. “Seeing that the test was just as accurate in primary care (about 90%) as it was in secondary care is really encouraging, especially since primary care is the first, and often final, point of entry into the healthcare system for cognitive evaluations.”

He said he was surprised the biomarkers performed so well in prospective, biweekly analyses throughout the study. “Previous studies have only demonstrated their effectiveness when all collected samples are analyzed at a single time point, which does not reflect how a blood test is used in clinical practice.”

He added that he was surprised that the tests were just as accurate in primary care as in a memory clinic setting with referred patients. This, despite older age and higher prevalence of comorbidities in primary care, such as chronic kidney disease (present in 26% of the primary care cohort), can be a confounding factor causing increased concentrations of p-tau217.
 

Next Steps

The diagnostic accuracy of the blood tests is on par with FDA-cleared cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, noted the investigators, led by senior author Oskar Hansson, MD, PhD, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

As blood tests are “more time effective, cost effective, and convenient” for patients, “they could also potentially replace cerebrospinal fluid tests and PET,” they added.

Dr. Palmqvist emphasized that these tests should not be used as stand-alone diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s disease but should complement the standard clinical evaluation that includes cognitive testing and a thorough interview with the patient and a spouse or relative.

“This is crucial because Alzheimer’s disease pathology can be asymptomatic for many years, and cognitive symptoms in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease pathology may primarily result from other conditions. Misinterpreting a positive Alzheimer’s disease blood test could lead to underdiagnosis of common non–Alzheimer’s disease conditions.”

With new antiamyloid treatments possibly slowing disease progression by 30%-40% when initiated early on, a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease could lead to more people receiving an accurate and earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Palmqvist. “This could potentially result in a better response to treatment. Results from drug trials clearly indicate that the earlier treatment begins, the more effectively it can slow disease progression.”

The test used in the study is already available in the United States, the investigators said, and a similar test will be accessible in Sweden within a few months. “However, the rollout will probably be gradual and will depend on how international and national guidelines recommend their use, so developing these guidelines will be a crucial next step for widespread implementation, particularly in primary care,” said Dr. Palmqvist.

He also underlined the importance of replicating the findings in more diverse populations. “This will help ensure the tests’ reliability and effectiveness across various demographic and clinical contexts.”

An important next research step is to examine how implementing a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease affects patient care. “This includes looking at changes in management, such as referrals, other examinations, and the initiation of appropriate treatments,” said Dr. Palmqvist.

Another study presented at the meeting showed that a highly accurate blood test could significantly reduce diagnostic wait times.
 

Convincing Research

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen Salloway, MD, Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, and colleagues said the study “makes the case convincingly that highly sensitive blood measures of Alzheimer’s disease can be integrated into the clinical decision-making process, including in the primary care setting.”

These tests, they wrote, “can be used to enhance the ability of clinicians to accurately identify individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid.”

A key limitation of the study was the lack of diversity in the study sample. This makes it difficult to generalize the results across other ethnic and racial groups, the editorialists noted. Plasma assays for Alzheimer’s disease in the United States will require approval from the FDA and coverage by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to be widely adopted.

The editorialists also pointed out that advances in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease will require important changes to healthcare models, including providing additional resources and staffing.

The study was supported by the Alzheimer’s Association, National Institute on Aging, European Research Council, Swedish Research Council, the GHR Foundation, and other groups. The study was conducted as an academic collaboration between Lund University and C2N Diagnostics in the United States. Lund University or its affiliated researchers received no funding or compensation from C2N Diagnostics. C2N Diagnostics performed the plasma analyses blinded to any biomarker or clinical data and had no role in the statistical analysis or results. Dr. Palmqvist reported receiving institutional research support from ki:elements, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals and consultancy or speaker fees from BioArctic, Biogen, Esai, Eli Lilly, and Roche. Dr. Hansson reported receiving personal fees from AC Immune, ALZpath, BioArctic, Biogen, Cerveau, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fujirebio, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, and Siemens and institutional research support from ADX, AVID Radiopharmaceuticals, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Salloway reported receiving grants from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, Genentech, Eisai, and Novartis; personal fees from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, Genentech, Eisai, Novo Nordisk, Prothena, AbbVie, Acumen, and Kisbee; and nonfinancial support (travel expenses for conference attendance) from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, and Acumen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — Amyloid beta (Abeta) and tau protein blood biomarkers are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics, new research showed.

Accurate early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is important because two monoclonal antibodies donanemab (Kisunla) and lecanemab (Leqembi) are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. However, the use of these agents requires amyloid confirmation.

A key finding of the study was that primary care physicians had a diagnostic accuracy of 61%, and dementia specialists had an accuracy of 73%, after completing standard clinical evaluations and before seeing results of the blood test or other Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers, while the blood test used in the study had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“This underscores the potential improvement in diagnostic accuracy, especially in primary care, when implementing such a blood test,” said study investigator Sebastian Palmqvist, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at Lund University, Lund, and a consultant at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. “It also highlights the challenges in accurately identifying Alzheimer’s disease based solely on clinical evaluation and cognitive testing, even for specialists.”

The findings were presented at the 2024 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) and simultaneously published online in JAMA.

The study included two cohorts from primary and secondary care clinics in Sweden. Researchers analyzed plasma samples together at one time point in a single batch.

It also included two cohorts from Swedish primary and secondary care clinics where the plasma samples were analyzed prospectively (biweekly) in batches throughout the enrollment period, which more closely resembles clinical practice.

Primary care physicians and dementia specialists documented whether they believed their patients had Alzheimer’s disease pathology, basing the diagnoses on the standard evaluation that includes clinical examination, cognitive testing, and a CT scan prior to seeing any Alzheimer’s disease biomarker results.

They reported their certainty of the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology on a scale from 0 (not at all certain) to 10 (completely certain).

Plasma analyses were performed by personnel blinded to all clinical or biomarker data. Mass spectrometry assays were used to analyze Abeta42, Abeta40, phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217), and non–p-tau217.

Biomarkers used in the study included the percentage of plasma p-tau217, which is the ratio of p-tau217 relative to non–p-tau217, and the Abeta42 to Abeta40 ratio (the amyloid probability score 2 [APS2]). Researchers determined p-tau217 alone and when combined with the APS2.

The study included 1213 patients with cognitive symptoms — mean age 74.2 years and 48% women. Researchers applied biomarker cutoff values to the primary care cohort (n = 307) and the secondary care cohort (n = 300) and then evaluated the blood test prospectively in the primary care cohort (n = 208) and the secondary care cohort (n = 398).

The blood biomarker cutoff value was set at 90% specificity for Alzheimer’s disease pathology (the 1 cutoff-value approach). A 2 cutoff-value approach (using 1 upper and 1 lower cutoff value) was also used with values corresponding to 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity.

The primary outcome was presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. A positive finding of the Abeta biomarker was defined according to the FDA-approved cutoff value (≤ 0.072). A positive finding of the tau biomarker was defined as a p-tau217 level > 11.42 pg/mL in cerebrospinal fluid.

Researchers calculated the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy, as well as area under the curve (AUC) values.
 

Accuracy in Specialty Versus Primary Care

When the plasma samples were analyzed in a single batch in the primary care cohort, the AUC was 0.97 when the APS2 was used. In the secondary care cohort, the AUC was 0.96 when the APS2 was used.

When plasma samples were analyzed prospectively (biweekly) in the primary care cohort, the AUC was 0.96 when the APS2 was used. In the secondary care cohort, the AUC was 0.97 when the APS2 was used.

The 2 cutoff-value approach achieved PPVs of 97%-99% in patients with cognitive impairment, which is the target population of currently available antiamyloid treatments.

Although NPVs were slightly lower in these patients (87%-92% using the APS2), “we argue that a very high positive predictive value is probably more important in diagnosing patients as having Alzheimer’s disease, especially before initiating costly and burdensome antiamyloid treatment,” the investigators noted.

The PPVs were less than optimal for accurate identification of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in patients with subjective cognitive decline regardless of the cutoff-value approach used. The researchers pointed out that this could be a disadvantage for clinical trials that include patients with presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease but not in clinical practice because there are no clinical criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease at the subjective cognitive decline stage.

The NPVs were higher in patients with subjective cognitive decline (91%-94% for the APS2 or percentage of p-tau217 alone). This indicates the blood test would be more useful for ruling out underlying Alzheimer’s disease when only subtle symptoms are present, the researchers noted.

As for doctors identifying clinical Alzheimer’s disease, primary care physicians had a diagnostic accuracy of 61% (95% CI, 53%-69%) versus 91% (95% CI, 86%-96%) using the APS2. Dementia specialists had a diagnostic accuracy of 73% (95% CI, 68%-79%) versus 91% (95% CI, 86%-95%) using the APS2.

In the overall population, the diagnostic accuracy using the APS2 (90%; 95% CI, 88%-92%) was not different from that using the percentage of p-tau217 alone (90%; 95% CI, 88%-91%).

Very little was known about how a blood test would perform in a primary care setting, said Dr. Palmqvist. “Seeing that the test was just as accurate in primary care (about 90%) as it was in secondary care is really encouraging, especially since primary care is the first, and often final, point of entry into the healthcare system for cognitive evaluations.”

He said he was surprised the biomarkers performed so well in prospective, biweekly analyses throughout the study. “Previous studies have only demonstrated their effectiveness when all collected samples are analyzed at a single time point, which does not reflect how a blood test is used in clinical practice.”

He added that he was surprised that the tests were just as accurate in primary care as in a memory clinic setting with referred patients. This, despite older age and higher prevalence of comorbidities in primary care, such as chronic kidney disease (present in 26% of the primary care cohort), can be a confounding factor causing increased concentrations of p-tau217.
 

Next Steps

The diagnostic accuracy of the blood tests is on par with FDA-cleared cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, noted the investigators, led by senior author Oskar Hansson, MD, PhD, Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

As blood tests are “more time effective, cost effective, and convenient” for patients, “they could also potentially replace cerebrospinal fluid tests and PET,” they added.

Dr. Palmqvist emphasized that these tests should not be used as stand-alone diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s disease but should complement the standard clinical evaluation that includes cognitive testing and a thorough interview with the patient and a spouse or relative.

“This is crucial because Alzheimer’s disease pathology can be asymptomatic for many years, and cognitive symptoms in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease pathology may primarily result from other conditions. Misinterpreting a positive Alzheimer’s disease blood test could lead to underdiagnosis of common non–Alzheimer’s disease conditions.”

With new antiamyloid treatments possibly slowing disease progression by 30%-40% when initiated early on, a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease could lead to more people receiving an accurate and earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Palmqvist. “This could potentially result in a better response to treatment. Results from drug trials clearly indicate that the earlier treatment begins, the more effectively it can slow disease progression.”

The test used in the study is already available in the United States, the investigators said, and a similar test will be accessible in Sweden within a few months. “However, the rollout will probably be gradual and will depend on how international and national guidelines recommend their use, so developing these guidelines will be a crucial next step for widespread implementation, particularly in primary care,” said Dr. Palmqvist.

He also underlined the importance of replicating the findings in more diverse populations. “This will help ensure the tests’ reliability and effectiveness across various demographic and clinical contexts.”

An important next research step is to examine how implementing a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease affects patient care. “This includes looking at changes in management, such as referrals, other examinations, and the initiation of appropriate treatments,” said Dr. Palmqvist.

Another study presented at the meeting showed that a highly accurate blood test could significantly reduce diagnostic wait times.
 

Convincing Research

In an accompanying editorial, Stephen Salloway, MD, Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, and colleagues said the study “makes the case convincingly that highly sensitive blood measures of Alzheimer’s disease can be integrated into the clinical decision-making process, including in the primary care setting.”

These tests, they wrote, “can be used to enhance the ability of clinicians to accurately identify individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid.”

A key limitation of the study was the lack of diversity in the study sample. This makes it difficult to generalize the results across other ethnic and racial groups, the editorialists noted. Plasma assays for Alzheimer’s disease in the United States will require approval from the FDA and coverage by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to be widely adopted.

The editorialists also pointed out that advances in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease will require important changes to healthcare models, including providing additional resources and staffing.

The study was supported by the Alzheimer’s Association, National Institute on Aging, European Research Council, Swedish Research Council, the GHR Foundation, and other groups. The study was conducted as an academic collaboration between Lund University and C2N Diagnostics in the United States. Lund University or its affiliated researchers received no funding or compensation from C2N Diagnostics. C2N Diagnostics performed the plasma analyses blinded to any biomarker or clinical data and had no role in the statistical analysis or results. Dr. Palmqvist reported receiving institutional research support from ki:elements, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals and consultancy or speaker fees from BioArctic, Biogen, Esai, Eli Lilly, and Roche. Dr. Hansson reported receiving personal fees from AC Immune, ALZpath, BioArctic, Biogen, Cerveau, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fujirebio, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, and Siemens and institutional research support from ADX, AVID Radiopharmaceuticals, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Salloway reported receiving grants from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, Genentech, Eisai, and Novartis; personal fees from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, Genentech, Eisai, Novo Nordisk, Prothena, AbbVie, Acumen, and Kisbee; and nonfinancial support (travel expenses for conference attendance) from Biogen, Roche, Lilly, and Acumen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a woman in a dynamic and ever-changing profession, balancing life as a powerhouse physician or scientist is no easy feat. AGA recognizes the challenges you face and is committed to addressing them directly at the AGA Women in GI Regional Workshops. The program has been expanded to six workshops in 2024.

We are pleased to offer regionally-curated workshops with distinguished speakers at all experience levels to fuel your professional and personal growth. Participate in candid discussions regarding the challenges you face as a woman navigating the 21^st century healthcare environment. Derive inspiration from your community and cultivate meaningful connections that will carry you beyond the workshop.

You may choose to join us in person or virtually, whatever fits into your busy schedule. We are also pleased to offer grants of $300 to support travel and registration fees for trainee and early career women. Additional details for the Maria Leo-Lieber Travel Award may be found in your confirmation email.

Register today for the final three workshops.
 

Rocky Mountain West

Saturday, Sept. 8

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Aug. 23

Deadline to register: Aug. 30

Southwest

Saturday, Sept. 14 

Houston, Texas

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Aug. 30 

Deadline to register: Sept. 6

Southeast

Saturday, Nov. 2

Coral Gables, Florida

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Oct. 8

Deadline to register: Oct. 25

This program is supported by Janssen.

As a woman in a dynamic and ever-changing profession, balancing life as a powerhouse physician or scientist is no easy feat. AGA recognizes the challenges you face and is committed to addressing them directly at the AGA Women in GI Regional Workshops. The program has been expanded to six workshops in 2024.

We are pleased to offer regionally-curated workshops with distinguished speakers at all experience levels to fuel your professional and personal growth. Participate in candid discussions regarding the challenges you face as a woman navigating the 21^st century healthcare environment. Derive inspiration from your community and cultivate meaningful connections that will carry you beyond the workshop.

You may choose to join us in person or virtually, whatever fits into your busy schedule. We are also pleased to offer grants of $300 to support travel and registration fees for trainee and early career women. Additional details for the Maria Leo-Lieber Travel Award may be found in your confirmation email.

Register today for the final three workshops.
 

Rocky Mountain West

Saturday, Sept. 8

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Aug. 23

Deadline to register: Aug. 30

Southwest

Saturday, Sept. 14 

Houston, Texas

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Aug. 30 

Deadline to register: Sept. 6

Southeast

Saturday, Nov. 2

Coral Gables, Florida

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Oct. 8

Deadline to register: Oct. 25

This program is supported by Janssen.

As a woman in a dynamic and ever-changing profession, balancing life as a powerhouse physician or scientist is no easy feat. AGA recognizes the challenges you face and is committed to addressing them directly at the AGA Women in GI Regional Workshops. The program has been expanded to six workshops in 2024.

We are pleased to offer regionally-curated workshops with distinguished speakers at all experience levels to fuel your professional and personal growth. Participate in candid discussions regarding the challenges you face as a woman navigating the 21^st century healthcare environment. Derive inspiration from your community and cultivate meaningful connections that will carry you beyond the workshop.

You may choose to join us in person or virtually, whatever fits into your busy schedule. We are also pleased to offer grants of $300 to support travel and registration fees for trainee and early career women. Additional details for the Maria Leo-Lieber Travel Award may be found in your confirmation email.

Register today for the final three workshops.
 

Rocky Mountain West

Saturday, Sept. 8

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Aug. 23

Deadline to register: Aug. 30

Southwest

Saturday, Sept. 14 

Houston, Texas

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Aug. 30 

Deadline to register: Sept. 6

Southeast

Saturday, Nov. 2

Coral Gables, Florida

Deadline to apply for a travel grant: Oct. 8

Deadline to register: Oct. 25

This program is supported by Janssen.

Patients are overdosing on compounded semaglutide due to errors in measuring and self-administering the drug and due to clinicians miscalculating doses that may differ from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products.

The FDA published an alert on July 26 after receiving reports of dosing errors involving compounded semaglutide injectable products dispensed in multidose vials. Adverse events included gastrointestinal effects, fainting, dehydration, headache, gallstones, and acute pancreatitis. Some patients required hospitalization.
 

Why the Risks?

FDA-approved semaglutide injectable products are dosed in milligrams, have standard concentrations, and are currently only available in prefilled pens.

Compounded semaglutide products may differ from approved products in ways that contribute to potential errors — for example, in multidose vials and prefilled syringes. In addition, product concentrations may vary depending on the compounder, and even a single compounder may offer multiple concentrations of semaglutide.

Instructions for a compounded drug, if provided, may tell users to administer semaglutide injections in “units,” the volume of which may vary depending on the concentration — rather than in milligrams. In some instances, patients received syringes significantly larger than the prescribed volume.
 

Common Errors

The FDA has received reports related to patients mistakenly taking more than the prescribed dose from a multidose vial — sometimes 5-20 times more than the intended dose.

Several reports described clinicians incorrectly calculating the intended dose when converting from milligrams to units or milliliters. In one case, a patient couldn’t get clarity on dosing instructions from the telemedicine provider who prescribed the compounded semaglutide, leading the patient to search online for medical advice. This resulted in the patient taking five times the intended dose.

In another example, one clinician prescribed 20 units instead of two units, affecting three patients who, after receiving 10 times the intended dose, experienced nausea and vomiting.

Another clinician, who also takes semaglutide himself, tried to recalculate his own dose in units and ended up self-administering a dose 10 times higher than intended.

The FDA previously warned about potential risks from the use of compounded drugs during a shortage as is the case with semaglutide. While compounded drugs can “sometimes” be helpful, according to the agency, “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness, or quality.”

Patients are overdosing on compounded semaglutide due to errors in measuring and self-administering the drug and due to clinicians miscalculating doses that may differ from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products.

The FDA published an alert on July 26 after receiving reports of dosing errors involving compounded semaglutide injectable products dispensed in multidose vials. Adverse events included gastrointestinal effects, fainting, dehydration, headache, gallstones, and acute pancreatitis. Some patients required hospitalization.
 

Why the Risks?

FDA-approved semaglutide injectable products are dosed in milligrams, have standard concentrations, and are currently only available in prefilled pens.

Compounded semaglutide products may differ from approved products in ways that contribute to potential errors — for example, in multidose vials and prefilled syringes. In addition, product concentrations may vary depending on the compounder, and even a single compounder may offer multiple concentrations of semaglutide.

Instructions for a compounded drug, if provided, may tell users to administer semaglutide injections in “units,” the volume of which may vary depending on the concentration — rather than in milligrams. In some instances, patients received syringes significantly larger than the prescribed volume.
 

Common Errors

The FDA has received reports related to patients mistakenly taking more than the prescribed dose from a multidose vial — sometimes 5-20 times more than the intended dose.

Several reports described clinicians incorrectly calculating the intended dose when converting from milligrams to units or milliliters. In one case, a patient couldn’t get clarity on dosing instructions from the telemedicine provider who prescribed the compounded semaglutide, leading the patient to search online for medical advice. This resulted in the patient taking five times the intended dose.

In another example, one clinician prescribed 20 units instead of two units, affecting three patients who, after receiving 10 times the intended dose, experienced nausea and vomiting.

Another clinician, who also takes semaglutide himself, tried to recalculate his own dose in units and ended up self-administering a dose 10 times higher than intended.

The FDA previously warned about potential risks from the use of compounded drugs during a shortage as is the case with semaglutide. While compounded drugs can “sometimes” be helpful, according to the agency, “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness, or quality.”

Patients are overdosing on compounded semaglutide due to errors in measuring and self-administering the drug and due to clinicians miscalculating doses that may differ from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products.

The FDA published an alert on July 26 after receiving reports of dosing errors involving compounded semaglutide injectable products dispensed in multidose vials. Adverse events included gastrointestinal effects, fainting, dehydration, headache, gallstones, and acute pancreatitis. Some patients required hospitalization.
 

Why the Risks?

FDA-approved semaglutide injectable products are dosed in milligrams, have standard concentrations, and are currently only available in prefilled pens.

Compounded semaglutide products may differ from approved products in ways that contribute to potential errors — for example, in multidose vials and prefilled syringes. In addition, product concentrations may vary depending on the compounder, and even a single compounder may offer multiple concentrations of semaglutide.

Instructions for a compounded drug, if provided, may tell users to administer semaglutide injections in “units,” the volume of which may vary depending on the concentration — rather than in milligrams. In some instances, patients received syringes significantly larger than the prescribed volume.
 

Common Errors

The FDA has received reports related to patients mistakenly taking more than the prescribed dose from a multidose vial — sometimes 5-20 times more than the intended dose.

Several reports described clinicians incorrectly calculating the intended dose when converting from milligrams to units or milliliters. In one case, a patient couldn’t get clarity on dosing instructions from the telemedicine provider who prescribed the compounded semaglutide, leading the patient to search online for medical advice. This resulted in the patient taking five times the intended dose.

In another example, one clinician prescribed 20 units instead of two units, affecting three patients who, after receiving 10 times the intended dose, experienced nausea and vomiting.

Another clinician, who also takes semaglutide himself, tried to recalculate his own dose in units and ended up self-administering a dose 10 times higher than intended.

The FDA previously warned about potential risks from the use of compounded drugs during a shortage as is the case with semaglutide. While compounded drugs can “sometimes” be helpful, according to the agency, “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness, or quality.”

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A breakthrough in medical testing now allows for colorectal cancer screening with just a simple blood test, promising a more accessible and less invasive way to catch the disease early. 

The FDA on July 29 approved the test, called Shield, which can accurately detect tumors in the colon or rectum about 87% of the time when the cancer is in treatable early stages. The approval was announced July 29 by the test’s maker, Guardant Health, and comes just months after promising clinical trial results were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Colorectal cancer is among the most common types of cancer diagnosed in the United States each year, along with being one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The condition is treatable in early stages, but about 1 in 3 people don’t stay up to date on regular screenings, which should begin at age 45.

The simplicity of a blood test could make it more likely for people to be screened for and, ultimately, survive the disease. Other primary screening options include feces-based tests or colonoscopy. The 5-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 64%.

While highly accurate at detecting DNA shed by tumors during treatable stages of colorectal cancer, the Shield test was not as effective at detecting precancerous areas of tissue, which are typically removed after being detected.

In its news release, Guardant Health officials said they anticipate the test to be covered under Medicare. The out-of-pocket cost for people whose insurance does not cover the test has not yet been announced. The test is expected to be available by next week, The New York Times reported.

If someone’s Shield test comes back positive, the person would then get more tests to confirm the result. Shield was shown in trials to have a 10% false positive rate.

“I was in for a routine physical, and my doctor asked when I had my last colonoscopy,” said John Gormly, a 77-year-old business executive in Newport Beach, California, according to a Guardant Health news release. “I said it’s been a long time, so he offered to give me the Shield blood test. A few days later, the result came back positive, so he referred me for a colonoscopy. It turned out I had stage II colon cancer. The tumor was removed, and I recovered very quickly. Thank God I had taken that blood test.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

As disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) become available, equipping primary care physicians with a highly accurate blood test could significantly reduce diagnostic wait times. Currently, the patient diagnostic journey is often prolonged owing to the limited number of AD specialists, causing concern among healthcare providers and patients alike. Now, a new study suggests that use of high-performing blood tests in primary care could identify potential patients with AD much earlier, possibly reducing wait times for specialist care and receipt of treatment.

“We need to triage in primary care and send preferentially the ones that actually could be eligible for treatment, and not those who are just worried because their grandmother reported that she has Alzheimer’s,” lead researcher Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc, told this news organization.

“By combining a brief cognitive test with an accurate blood test of Alzheimer’s pathology in primary care, we can reduce unnecessary referrals, and shorten appointment wait times,” said Dr. Mattke, director of the Brain Health Observatory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
 

Projected Wait Times 100 Months by 2033

The investigators used a Markov model to estimate wait times for patients eligible for AD treatment, taking into account constrained capacity for specialist visits.

The model included the projected US population of people aged 55 years or older from 2023 to 2032. It assumed that individuals would undergo a brief cognitive assessment in primary care and, if suggestive of early-stage cognitive impairment, be referred to a AD specialist under three scenarios: no blood test, blood test to rule out AD pathology, and blood test to confirm AD pathology.

According to the model, without an accurate blood test for AD pathology, projected wait times to see a specialist are about 12 months in 2024 and will increase to more than 100 months in 2033, largely owing to a lack of specialist appointments.

In contrast, with the availability of an accurate blood test to rule out AD, average wait times would be just 3 months in 2024 and increase to only about 13 months in 2033, because far fewer patients would need to see a specialist.

Availability of a blood test to rule in AD pathology in primary care would have a limited effect on wait times because 50% of patients would still undergo confirmatory testing based on expert assumptions, the model suggests.
 

Prioritizing Resources 

“Millions of people have mild memory complaints, and if they all start coming to neurologists, it could completely flood the system and create long wait times for everybody,” Dr. Mattke told this news organization.

The problem, he said, is that brief cognitive tests performed in primary care are not particularly specific for mild cognitive impairment.

“They work pretty well for manifest advanced dementia but for mild cognitive impairment, which is a very subtle, symptomatic disease, they are only about 75% accurate. One quarter are false-positives. That’s a lot of people,” Dr. Mattke said.

He also noted that although earlier blood tests were about 75% accurate, they are now about 90% accurate, “so we are getting to a level where we can pretty much say with confidence that this is likely Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Mattke said.

Commenting on this research for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said it is clear that blood tests, “once confirmed, could have a significant impact on the wait times” for dementia assessment. 

“After an initial blood test, we might be able to rule out or rule in individuals who should go to a specialist for further follow-up and testing. This allows us to really ensure that we’re prioritizing resources accordingly,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study. 

This project was supported by a research contract from C2N Diagnostics LLC to USC. Dr. Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems Inc. and the scientific advisory board of ALZPath and Boston Millennia Partners and has received consulting fees from Biogen, C2N, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Snyder has no relevant disclosures.

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

As disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) become available, equipping primary care physicians with a highly accurate blood test could significantly reduce diagnostic wait times. Currently, the patient diagnostic journey is often prolonged owing to the limited number of AD specialists, causing concern among healthcare providers and patients alike. Now, a new study suggests that use of high-performing blood tests in primary care could identify potential patients with AD much earlier, possibly reducing wait times for specialist care and receipt of treatment.

“We need to triage in primary care and send preferentially the ones that actually could be eligible for treatment, and not those who are just worried because their grandmother reported that she has Alzheimer’s,” lead researcher Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc, told this news organization.

“By combining a brief cognitive test with an accurate blood test of Alzheimer’s pathology in primary care, we can reduce unnecessary referrals, and shorten appointment wait times,” said Dr. Mattke, director of the Brain Health Observatory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
 

Projected Wait Times 100 Months by 2033

The investigators used a Markov model to estimate wait times for patients eligible for AD treatment, taking into account constrained capacity for specialist visits.

The model included the projected US population of people aged 55 years or older from 2023 to 2032. It assumed that individuals would undergo a brief cognitive assessment in primary care and, if suggestive of early-stage cognitive impairment, be referred to a AD specialist under three scenarios: no blood test, blood test to rule out AD pathology, and blood test to confirm AD pathology.

According to the model, without an accurate blood test for AD pathology, projected wait times to see a specialist are about 12 months in 2024 and will increase to more than 100 months in 2033, largely owing to a lack of specialist appointments.

In contrast, with the availability of an accurate blood test to rule out AD, average wait times would be just 3 months in 2024 and increase to only about 13 months in 2033, because far fewer patients would need to see a specialist.

Availability of a blood test to rule in AD pathology in primary care would have a limited effect on wait times because 50% of patients would still undergo confirmatory testing based on expert assumptions, the model suggests.
 

Prioritizing Resources 

“Millions of people have mild memory complaints, and if they all start coming to neurologists, it could completely flood the system and create long wait times for everybody,” Dr. Mattke told this news organization.

The problem, he said, is that brief cognitive tests performed in primary care are not particularly specific for mild cognitive impairment.

“They work pretty well for manifest advanced dementia but for mild cognitive impairment, which is a very subtle, symptomatic disease, they are only about 75% accurate. One quarter are false-positives. That’s a lot of people,” Dr. Mattke said.

He also noted that although earlier blood tests were about 75% accurate, they are now about 90% accurate, “so we are getting to a level where we can pretty much say with confidence that this is likely Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Mattke said.

Commenting on this research for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said it is clear that blood tests, “once confirmed, could have a significant impact on the wait times” for dementia assessment. 

“After an initial blood test, we might be able to rule out or rule in individuals who should go to a specialist for further follow-up and testing. This allows us to really ensure that we’re prioritizing resources accordingly,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study. 

This project was supported by a research contract from C2N Diagnostics LLC to USC. Dr. Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems Inc. and the scientific advisory board of ALZPath and Boston Millennia Partners and has received consulting fees from Biogen, C2N, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Snyder has no relevant disclosures.

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

As disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) become available, equipping primary care physicians with a highly accurate blood test could significantly reduce diagnostic wait times. Currently, the patient diagnostic journey is often prolonged owing to the limited number of AD specialists, causing concern among healthcare providers and patients alike. Now, a new study suggests that use of high-performing blood tests in primary care could identify potential patients with AD much earlier, possibly reducing wait times for specialist care and receipt of treatment.

“We need to triage in primary care and send preferentially the ones that actually could be eligible for treatment, and not those who are just worried because their grandmother reported that she has Alzheimer’s,” lead researcher Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc, told this news organization.

“By combining a brief cognitive test with an accurate blood test of Alzheimer’s pathology in primary care, we can reduce unnecessary referrals, and shorten appointment wait times,” said Dr. Mattke, director of the Brain Health Observatory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
 

Projected Wait Times 100 Months by 2033

The investigators used a Markov model to estimate wait times for patients eligible for AD treatment, taking into account constrained capacity for specialist visits.

The model included the projected US population of people aged 55 years or older from 2023 to 2032. It assumed that individuals would undergo a brief cognitive assessment in primary care and, if suggestive of early-stage cognitive impairment, be referred to a AD specialist under three scenarios: no blood test, blood test to rule out AD pathology, and blood test to confirm AD pathology.

According to the model, without an accurate blood test for AD pathology, projected wait times to see a specialist are about 12 months in 2024 and will increase to more than 100 months in 2033, largely owing to a lack of specialist appointments.

In contrast, with the availability of an accurate blood test to rule out AD, average wait times would be just 3 months in 2024 and increase to only about 13 months in 2033, because far fewer patients would need to see a specialist.

Availability of a blood test to rule in AD pathology in primary care would have a limited effect on wait times because 50% of patients would still undergo confirmatory testing based on expert assumptions, the model suggests.
 

Prioritizing Resources 

“Millions of people have mild memory complaints, and if they all start coming to neurologists, it could completely flood the system and create long wait times for everybody,” Dr. Mattke told this news organization.

The problem, he said, is that brief cognitive tests performed in primary care are not particularly specific for mild cognitive impairment.

“They work pretty well for manifest advanced dementia but for mild cognitive impairment, which is a very subtle, symptomatic disease, they are only about 75% accurate. One quarter are false-positives. That’s a lot of people,” Dr. Mattke said.

He also noted that although earlier blood tests were about 75% accurate, they are now about 90% accurate, “so we are getting to a level where we can pretty much say with confidence that this is likely Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Mattke said.

Commenting on this research for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said it is clear that blood tests, “once confirmed, could have a significant impact on the wait times” for dementia assessment. 

“After an initial blood test, we might be able to rule out or rule in individuals who should go to a specialist for further follow-up and testing. This allows us to really ensure that we’re prioritizing resources accordingly,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study. 

This project was supported by a research contract from C2N Diagnostics LLC to USC. Dr. Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems Inc. and the scientific advisory board of ALZPath and Boston Millennia Partners and has received consulting fees from Biogen, C2N, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Snyder has no relevant disclosures.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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