Eight commonly used antidepressants have been ranked by their weight gain potential. 

Results of a large observational study showed small differences in short- and long-term weight change in patients prescribed one of eight antidepressants, with bupropion associated with the lowest weight gain and escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine associated with the greatest. 

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with those taking sertraline, which was used as a comparator. 

Investigators noted that the more clinicians and patients know about how a particular antidepressant may affect patients’ weight, the better informed they can be about which antidepressants to prescribe. 

“Patients and their clinicians often have several options when starting an antidepressant for the first time. This study provides important real-world evidence regarding the amount of weight gain that should be expected after starting some of the most common antidepressants,” lead author Joshua Petimar, ScD, assistant professor of population medicine in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a press release. 

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. 


 

Real-World Data

Though weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of antidepressant use and may lead to medication nonadherence and worse outcomes, there is a lack of real-world data about weight change across specific medications. 

Investigators used electronic health records from eight health care systems across the United States spanning from 2010 to 2019. The analysis included information on 183,118 adults aged 20-80 years who were new users of one of eight common first-line antidepressants. Investigators measured their weight at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects of weight change.

At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to begin sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. 

The most common antidepressants prescribed were sertraline, citalopram, and bupropion. Approximately 36% of participants had a diagnosis of depression, and 39% were diagnosed with anxiety.

Among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), escitalopram and paroxetine were associated with the greatest 6-month weight gain, whereas bupropion was associated with the least weight gain across all analyses.

Using sertraline as a comparator, 6-month weight change was lower for bupropion (difference, 0.22 kg) and higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg), and venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg).

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with sertraline users.

Investigators noted little difference in adherence levels between medications during the study except at 6 months, when it was higher for those who took bupropion (41%) than for those taking other antidepressants (28%-36%).

The study included data only on prescriptions and investigators could not verify whether the medications were dispensed or taken as prescribed. Other limitations included missing weight information because most patients did not encounter the health system at exactly 6, 12, and 24 months; only 15%-30% had weight measurements in those months. 

Finally, the low adherence rates made it difficult to attribute relative weight change at the 12- and 24-month time points to the specific medications of interest.

“Clinicians and patients could consider these differences when making decisions about specific antidepressants, especially given the complex relationships of obesity and depression with health, quality of life, and stigma,” the authors wrote. 

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Disclosures are noted in the original article. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eight commonly used antidepressants have been ranked by their weight gain potential. 

Results of a large observational study showed small differences in short- and long-term weight change in patients prescribed one of eight antidepressants, with bupropion associated with the lowest weight gain and escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine associated with the greatest. 

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with those taking sertraline, which was used as a comparator. 

Investigators noted that the more clinicians and patients know about how a particular antidepressant may affect patients’ weight, the better informed they can be about which antidepressants to prescribe. 

“Patients and their clinicians often have several options when starting an antidepressant for the first time. This study provides important real-world evidence regarding the amount of weight gain that should be expected after starting some of the most common antidepressants,” lead author Joshua Petimar, ScD, assistant professor of population medicine in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a press release. 

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. 


 

Real-World Data

Though weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of antidepressant use and may lead to medication nonadherence and worse outcomes, there is a lack of real-world data about weight change across specific medications. 

Investigators used electronic health records from eight health care systems across the United States spanning from 2010 to 2019. The analysis included information on 183,118 adults aged 20-80 years who were new users of one of eight common first-line antidepressants. Investigators measured their weight at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects of weight change.

At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to begin sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. 

The most common antidepressants prescribed were sertraline, citalopram, and bupropion. Approximately 36% of participants had a diagnosis of depression, and 39% were diagnosed with anxiety.

Among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), escitalopram and paroxetine were associated with the greatest 6-month weight gain, whereas bupropion was associated with the least weight gain across all analyses.

Using sertraline as a comparator, 6-month weight change was lower for bupropion (difference, 0.22 kg) and higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg), and venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg).

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with sertraline users.

Investigators noted little difference in adherence levels between medications during the study except at 6 months, when it was higher for those who took bupropion (41%) than for those taking other antidepressants (28%-36%).

The study included data only on prescriptions and investigators could not verify whether the medications were dispensed or taken as prescribed. Other limitations included missing weight information because most patients did not encounter the health system at exactly 6, 12, and 24 months; only 15%-30% had weight measurements in those months. 

Finally, the low adherence rates made it difficult to attribute relative weight change at the 12- and 24-month time points to the specific medications of interest.

“Clinicians and patients could consider these differences when making decisions about specific antidepressants, especially given the complex relationships of obesity and depression with health, quality of life, and stigma,” the authors wrote. 

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Disclosures are noted in the original article. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eight commonly used antidepressants have been ranked by their weight gain potential. 

Results of a large observational study showed small differences in short- and long-term weight change in patients prescribed one of eight antidepressants, with bupropion associated with the lowest weight gain and escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine associated with the greatest. 

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with those taking sertraline, which was used as a comparator. 

Investigators noted that the more clinicians and patients know about how a particular antidepressant may affect patients’ weight, the better informed they can be about which antidepressants to prescribe. 

“Patients and their clinicians often have several options when starting an antidepressant for the first time. This study provides important real-world evidence regarding the amount of weight gain that should be expected after starting some of the most common antidepressants,” lead author Joshua Petimar, ScD, assistant professor of population medicine in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a press release. 

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. 


 

Real-World Data

Though weight gain is a commonly reported side effect of antidepressant use and may lead to medication nonadherence and worse outcomes, there is a lack of real-world data about weight change across specific medications. 

Investigators used electronic health records from eight health care systems across the United States spanning from 2010 to 2019. The analysis included information on 183,118 adults aged 20-80 years who were new users of one of eight common first-line antidepressants. Investigators measured their weight at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation to estimate intention-to-treat (ITT) effects of weight change.

At baseline, participants were randomly assigned to begin sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. 

The most common antidepressants prescribed were sertraline, citalopram, and bupropion. Approximately 36% of participants had a diagnosis of depression, and 39% were diagnosed with anxiety.

Among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), escitalopram and paroxetine were associated with the greatest 6-month weight gain, whereas bupropion was associated with the least weight gain across all analyses.

Using sertraline as a comparator, 6-month weight change was lower for bupropion (difference, 0.22 kg) and higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg), and venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg).

Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine users were 10%-15% more likely to gain at least 5% of their baseline weight compared with sertraline users.

Investigators noted little difference in adherence levels between medications during the study except at 6 months, when it was higher for those who took bupropion (41%) than for those taking other antidepressants (28%-36%).

The study included data only on prescriptions and investigators could not verify whether the medications were dispensed or taken as prescribed. Other limitations included missing weight information because most patients did not encounter the health system at exactly 6, 12, and 24 months; only 15%-30% had weight measurements in those months. 

Finally, the low adherence rates made it difficult to attribute relative weight change at the 12- and 24-month time points to the specific medications of interest.

“Clinicians and patients could consider these differences when making decisions about specific antidepressants, especially given the complex relationships of obesity and depression with health, quality of life, and stigma,” the authors wrote. 

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Disclosures are noted in the original article. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Patients with type 2 diabetes, overweight, or obesity taking the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide appear to have an increased risk for an uncommon condition that can cause vision loss. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 16,827 patients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston.
• Their analysis focused on 710 patients with type 2 diabetes (194 of whom had been prescribed semaglutide) and 979 patients with overweight or obesity (361 prescribed semaglutide).
• The researchers compared patients prescribed semaglutide with those prescribed a medication other than a GLP-1 agent. They matched patients by factors such as age and sex and whether they had hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, or coronary artery disease.
• They assessed the cumulative incidence of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) during 36 months of follow-up. 
•  

TAKEAWAY: 

• Semaglutide use was associated with a higher risk for NAION in patients with type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.28; 95% CI, 1.62-11.29).
• In patients with overweight or obesity, semaglutide again was linked to a higher risk for NAION (HR, 7.64; 95% CI, 2.21-26.36).
• Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 8.9% for those prescribed semaglutide vs 1.8% among those taking non–GLP-1 medications.
• For patients with overweight or obesity, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 6.7% for the semaglutide cohort vs 0.8% for those in the other group. 

IN PRACTICE:

Semaglutide has “provided very significant benefits in many ways, but future discussions between a patient and their physician should include NAION as a potential risk,” study leader Joseph Rizzo, MD, with Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release about the findings. “It is important to appreciate, however, that the increased risk relates to a disorder that is relatively uncommon.”

“Given the numbers of participants who have been recruited to clinical trials and the large number of people globally who use GLP-1 RAs, we should be confident that if corroborated, the absolute risk of developing NAION in direct relation to taking semaglutide must indeed be rare,” Susan P. Mollan, MBcHB, of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in England, wrote in a commentary published with the study. 
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on July 3 in JAMA Ophthalmology.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The patients were seen at a hospital that specializes in ophthalmology and has a specialized neuro-ophthalmology service, so the results may not fully apply to other settings. The results were driven by a relatively small number of NAION cases in the patients exposed to semaglutide. The study does not establish that semaglutide directly causes NAION, the researchers noted. “The best approaches to confirm, refute, or refine our findings would be to conduct a much larger, retrospective, multicenter population-based cohort study; a prospective, randomized clinical study; or a postmarket analysis of all GLP-1 RA drugs,” they wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. 
 

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: 

Patients with type 2 diabetes, overweight, or obesity taking the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide appear to have an increased risk for an uncommon condition that can cause vision loss. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 16,827 patients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston.
• Their analysis focused on 710 patients with type 2 diabetes (194 of whom had been prescribed semaglutide) and 979 patients with overweight or obesity (361 prescribed semaglutide).
• The researchers compared patients prescribed semaglutide with those prescribed a medication other than a GLP-1 agent. They matched patients by factors such as age and sex and whether they had hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, or coronary artery disease.
• They assessed the cumulative incidence of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) during 36 months of follow-up. 
•  

TAKEAWAY: 

• Semaglutide use was associated with a higher risk for NAION in patients with type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.28; 95% CI, 1.62-11.29).
• In patients with overweight or obesity, semaglutide again was linked to a higher risk for NAION (HR, 7.64; 95% CI, 2.21-26.36).
• Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 8.9% for those prescribed semaglutide vs 1.8% among those taking non–GLP-1 medications.
• For patients with overweight or obesity, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 6.7% for the semaglutide cohort vs 0.8% for those in the other group. 

IN PRACTICE:

Semaglutide has “provided very significant benefits in many ways, but future discussions between a patient and their physician should include NAION as a potential risk,” study leader Joseph Rizzo, MD, with Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release about the findings. “It is important to appreciate, however, that the increased risk relates to a disorder that is relatively uncommon.”

“Given the numbers of participants who have been recruited to clinical trials and the large number of people globally who use GLP-1 RAs, we should be confident that if corroborated, the absolute risk of developing NAION in direct relation to taking semaglutide must indeed be rare,” Susan P. Mollan, MBcHB, of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in England, wrote in a commentary published with the study. 
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on July 3 in JAMA Ophthalmology.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The patients were seen at a hospital that specializes in ophthalmology and has a specialized neuro-ophthalmology service, so the results may not fully apply to other settings. The results were driven by a relatively small number of NAION cases in the patients exposed to semaglutide. The study does not establish that semaglutide directly causes NAION, the researchers noted. “The best approaches to confirm, refute, or refine our findings would be to conduct a much larger, retrospective, multicenter population-based cohort study; a prospective, randomized clinical study; or a postmarket analysis of all GLP-1 RA drugs,” they wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. 
 

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: 

Patients with type 2 diabetes, overweight, or obesity taking the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide appear to have an increased risk for an uncommon condition that can cause vision loss. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 16,827 patients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear in Boston.
• Their analysis focused on 710 patients with type 2 diabetes (194 of whom had been prescribed semaglutide) and 979 patients with overweight or obesity (361 prescribed semaglutide).
• The researchers compared patients prescribed semaglutide with those prescribed a medication other than a GLP-1 agent. They matched patients by factors such as age and sex and whether they had hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, or coronary artery disease.
• They assessed the cumulative incidence of nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) during 36 months of follow-up. 
•  

TAKEAWAY: 

• Semaglutide use was associated with a higher risk for NAION in patients with type 2 diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 4.28; 95% CI, 1.62-11.29).
• In patients with overweight or obesity, semaglutide again was linked to a higher risk for NAION (HR, 7.64; 95% CI, 2.21-26.36).
• Among patients with type 2 diabetes, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 8.9% for those prescribed semaglutide vs 1.8% among those taking non–GLP-1 medications.
• For patients with overweight or obesity, the cumulative incidence of NAION over 36 months was 6.7% for the semaglutide cohort vs 0.8% for those in the other group. 

IN PRACTICE:

Semaglutide has “provided very significant benefits in many ways, but future discussions between a patient and their physician should include NAION as a potential risk,” study leader Joseph Rizzo, MD, with Mass Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, said in a news release about the findings. “It is important to appreciate, however, that the increased risk relates to a disorder that is relatively uncommon.”

“Given the numbers of participants who have been recruited to clinical trials and the large number of people globally who use GLP-1 RAs, we should be confident that if corroborated, the absolute risk of developing NAION in direct relation to taking semaglutide must indeed be rare,” Susan P. Mollan, MBcHB, of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, in England, wrote in a commentary published with the study. 
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on July 3 in JAMA Ophthalmology.
 

LIMITATIONS: 

The patients were seen at a hospital that specializes in ophthalmology and has a specialized neuro-ophthalmology service, so the results may not fully apply to other settings. The results were driven by a relatively small number of NAION cases in the patients exposed to semaglutide. The study does not establish that semaglutide directly causes NAION, the researchers noted. “The best approaches to confirm, refute, or refine our findings would be to conduct a much larger, retrospective, multicenter population-based cohort study; a prospective, randomized clinical study; or a postmarket analysis of all GLP-1 RA drugs,” they wrote.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. 
 

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:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

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:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

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:

Compared with placebo, administration of vocacapsaicin during bunionectomy reduces pain and decreases opioid consumption in the first 96 hours after surgery, with no local or systemic toxicity.

METHODOLOGY:

• This triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial included 147 patients undergoing bunionectomy.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive 14 mL of either 0.05 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.15 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, 0.30 mg/mL vocacapsaicin, or placebo at the surgical site during wound closure. Except for the study drug, all patients received identical perioperative analgesics.
• Patients were observed for 96 hours post-surgery, with follow-up visits on days 8, 15, and 29 to monitor for pain and adverse events.
• The primary endpoint was overall levels of pain at rest through the first 96 hours after surgery for the 0.30-mg/mL vocacapsaicin group.
• The secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who did not require opioids and total opioid consumption through 96 hours, as well as pain scores during the first postoperative week.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vocacapsaicin (0.30 mg/mL) reduced pain at rest by 33% over the first 96 hours, compared with placebo (P = .005).
• Overall, 26% of patients who received the 0.30-mg/mL dose of vocacapsaicin did not require opioids through 96 hours compared with 5% of patients receiving placebo (P = .025).
• The researchers reported no difference in the rate, type, or severity of adverse events in the four study groups, consistent with typical recovery from bunionectomy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that intraoperative administration of vocacapsaicin may provide substantial benefits in other surgical procedures,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Steven L. Shafer, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and published in the June 2024 issue of Anesthesiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of opioids was restricted from 0 to 96 hours after surgery, which did not reflect typical clinical practice. The range of vocacapsaicin concentrations tested may not have been extensive enough, as concentrations > 0.30 mg/mL might have provided better analgesia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Concentric Analgesics. Two authors declared being employed by Concentric Analgesics. Other authors declared having several ties with many sources, including the funding agency.

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.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I’m speaking from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we’ve seen some interesting, new data in GI cancers.

If you allow me, I’d like to go in a craniocaudal fashion. It’s my anatomic mnemonic. I think that’s appropriate because our plenary session yesterday kicked off with some exciting data in esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. 

This was the long-awaited ESOPEC trial. It’s a phase 3 study looking at perioperative FLOT (5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel), a chemo triplet, vs the CROSS protocol, which is neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and at first blush, FLOT looked to be the true winner. There were some really remarkable milestones in this study, and I have some reservations about the FLOT arm that I’ll raise in just a second. 

The investigators are to be commended because in a truly deadly disease, they reported a 5-year overall survival in half of the patients who were receiving FLOT. That is truly commendable and really a milestone in our field. The reason I take a little bit of issue with the trial is that I still have some questions about methodology.

It wasn’t that long ago at ASCO GI that there was a really heated debate called “FLOT or Not” — not in this precise setting, but asking the question, do we think that patients with upper GI malignancy are even fit enough to handle a chemo triplet like FLOT? 

The reason I bring that up now in 2024 is that, to my surprise, and I think to many others’, there was a lower-than-expected completion rate of the patients in this trial who were receiving the CROSS regimen. The number of people who were able to complete that in full was about two-thirds, which compared with a historical control from a trial scheme that first emerged over a decade ago that used to be over 90% completion. I found that quite strange. 

I also think this trial suffers a little bit, and unavoidably, from the evolution of care that’s happened since it was first enrolling. Of course, I refer to adjuvant immunotherapy. Now, the real question is whether there is synergy between patients who receive radiation upfront and then adjuvant nivolumab, as per CheckMate 577. 

In her plenary discussion, I thought Dr. Karyn Goodman did a masterful job — I would encourage you to watch it on ASCO’s website —discussing how we can take all these data and reconcile them for optimal patient outcome. She ultimately suggested that we might deploy all four modalities in the management of these people. 

She proposed a paradigm with a PET-adapted, upfront induction chemotherapy, then moving to chemoradiation, then moving to surgery, and finally moving to immunotherapy. That is all four of the traditional arms of oncology. I find that really rather remarkable. Watch that space. This is a great trial with really remarkable survival data, but I’m not entirely convinced that the CROSS arm was given its due. 

Next up, I want to talk about pancreas cancer, which is something near and dear to my heart. It affects about one in four of my patients and it remains, unfortunately, a highly lethal disease. I think the top-line news from this meeting is that the KRAS mutation is druggable. I’m probably showing my age, but when I did my fellowship in 2009 through 2012, I was taught that KRAS was sort of the undruggable mutation par excellence. At this meeting, we’ve seen maturing data in regard to targeting KRAS G12C with both sotorasib and adagrasib. The disease control rates are astounding, at 80% and more, which is really remarkable. I wouldn’t have believed that even a few years ago. 

I’m even more excited about how we bring a rising tide that can lift all boats and apply this to other KRAS mutations, and not just KRAS G12C but all KRAS mutations. I think that’s coming, hopefully, with the pan-RAS inhibitors, because once that happens — if that happens; I’ll try not to be irrationally exuberant — that would take the traditional mutation found in almost all pancreas cancers and really make it its own Achilles heel. I think that could be such a huge leap forward. 

Another matter, however, that remains unresolved at this meeting is in the neoadjuvant setting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. There’s still equipoise, actually, between neoadjuvant gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. I thought that that was very well spelled out by some of our Dutch colleagues, who continue to do great work in a variety of cancers, including colorectal. 

Where I’d like to move next is colorectal cancer. Of course, immunotherapy remains a hot topic at all of these conferences. There were three different aspects of immunotherapy I’d like to highlight at this conference in regard to colon and rectal cancer. 

First, Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz presented updated data from CheckMate 8HW, which looked at nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs chemotherapy in the first line for MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient colon cancer. Once again, the data we’ve had now for several years at the 2-year mark are incredibly impressive. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates for nivo/ipi are above 70% and down at around 14% for chemo. 

What was impressive about this meeting is that Dr. Lenz presented PFS2, trying to determine the impact, if any, of subsequent therapy. What was going on here, which I think was ethically responsible by the investigators, was crossover. About two-thirds of the chemo arm crossed over to any form of immuno-oncology (IO), and just under a half crossed over to nivo and ipi. The PFS benefits continued with up-front IO. The way that Dr. Lenz phrased it is that you really never get the chance to win back the benefit that you would derive by giving immunotherapy first line to someone who has MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient metastatic colon cancer. 

One thing that’s still not settled in my mind, though, is, does this really dethrone single-agent immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177? What I’m really driving at is the ipilimumab. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the addition of an anti-CTLA4 agent worth the toxicity that we know comes along with that mechanism of action? Watch this space. 

I was also really interested in NEOPRISM-CRC, which looked at the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant down-staging of radiographically high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer. Here, the investigators really make a strong case that, up front in these potentially respectable cases, not only should we know about mismatch repair deficiency but we should actually be interrogating further for tumor mutational burden (TMB). 

They had TMB-high patients. In fact, the median TMB was 42 mutations per megabase, with really impressive down-staging using three cycles of every-3-week pembrolizumab before surgery. Again, I really think we’re at an exciting time where, even for colon cancer that looks operable up front, we might actually have the opportunity to improve pathologic and clinical complete responses before and after surgery. 

Finally, I want to bring up what continues to amaze me. Two years ago, at ASCO 2022, we heard from Dr. Andrea Cercek and the Memorial Sloan Kettering group about the incredible experience they were having with neoadjuvant, or frankly, definitive dostarlimab in mismatch repair–deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. 

I remember being at the conference and there was simultaneous publication of that abstract in The New York Times because it was so remarkable. There was a 100% clinical complete response. The patients didn’t require radiation, they didn’t require chemotherapy, and they didn’t require surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer, provided there was this vulnerability of mismatch-repair deficiency. 

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Cercek and her group have updated those data with more than 40 patients, and again, a 100% clinical complete response, including mature, complete responses at over a year in about 20 patients. Again, we are really doing our rectal cancer patients a disservice if we’re not checking for mismatch-repair deficiency upfront, and especially if we’re not talking about them in multidisciplinary conferences. 

One of the things that absolutely blows my mind about rectal cancer is just how complicated it’s becoming. I think it is the standard of care to discuss these cases upfront with radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and pathology. 

Maybe the overarching message I would take from everything I’ve said today is that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. It’s really a dyad, a partnership that guides optimal medical oncology care. As much as I love ASCO, I often wish we had more of our pathology colleagues here. I look forward to taking all the findings from this meeting back to the tumor board and really having a dynamic dialogue.

Dr. Lewis is director, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I’m speaking from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we’ve seen some interesting, new data in GI cancers.

If you allow me, I’d like to go in a craniocaudal fashion. It’s my anatomic mnemonic. I think that’s appropriate because our plenary session yesterday kicked off with some exciting data in esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. 

This was the long-awaited ESOPEC trial. It’s a phase 3 study looking at perioperative FLOT (5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel), a chemo triplet, vs the CROSS protocol, which is neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and at first blush, FLOT looked to be the true winner. There were some really remarkable milestones in this study, and I have some reservations about the FLOT arm that I’ll raise in just a second. 

The investigators are to be commended because in a truly deadly disease, they reported a 5-year overall survival in half of the patients who were receiving FLOT. That is truly commendable and really a milestone in our field. The reason I take a little bit of issue with the trial is that I still have some questions about methodology.

It wasn’t that long ago at ASCO GI that there was a really heated debate called “FLOT or Not” — not in this precise setting, but asking the question, do we think that patients with upper GI malignancy are even fit enough to handle a chemo triplet like FLOT? 

The reason I bring that up now in 2024 is that, to my surprise, and I think to many others’, there was a lower-than-expected completion rate of the patients in this trial who were receiving the CROSS regimen. The number of people who were able to complete that in full was about two-thirds, which compared with a historical control from a trial scheme that first emerged over a decade ago that used to be over 90% completion. I found that quite strange. 

I also think this trial suffers a little bit, and unavoidably, from the evolution of care that’s happened since it was first enrolling. Of course, I refer to adjuvant immunotherapy. Now, the real question is whether there is synergy between patients who receive radiation upfront and then adjuvant nivolumab, as per CheckMate 577. 

In her plenary discussion, I thought Dr. Karyn Goodman did a masterful job — I would encourage you to watch it on ASCO’s website —discussing how we can take all these data and reconcile them for optimal patient outcome. She ultimately suggested that we might deploy all four modalities in the management of these people. 

She proposed a paradigm with a PET-adapted, upfront induction chemotherapy, then moving to chemoradiation, then moving to surgery, and finally moving to immunotherapy. That is all four of the traditional arms of oncology. I find that really rather remarkable. Watch that space. This is a great trial with really remarkable survival data, but I’m not entirely convinced that the CROSS arm was given its due. 

Next up, I want to talk about pancreas cancer, which is something near and dear to my heart. It affects about one in four of my patients and it remains, unfortunately, a highly lethal disease. I think the top-line news from this meeting is that the KRAS mutation is druggable. I’m probably showing my age, but when I did my fellowship in 2009 through 2012, I was taught that KRAS was sort of the undruggable mutation par excellence. At this meeting, we’ve seen maturing data in regard to targeting KRAS G12C with both sotorasib and adagrasib. The disease control rates are astounding, at 80% and more, which is really remarkable. I wouldn’t have believed that even a few years ago. 

I’m even more excited about how we bring a rising tide that can lift all boats and apply this to other KRAS mutations, and not just KRAS G12C but all KRAS mutations. I think that’s coming, hopefully, with the pan-RAS inhibitors, because once that happens — if that happens; I’ll try not to be irrationally exuberant — that would take the traditional mutation found in almost all pancreas cancers and really make it its own Achilles heel. I think that could be such a huge leap forward. 

Another matter, however, that remains unresolved at this meeting is in the neoadjuvant setting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. There’s still equipoise, actually, between neoadjuvant gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. I thought that that was very well spelled out by some of our Dutch colleagues, who continue to do great work in a variety of cancers, including colorectal. 

Where I’d like to move next is colorectal cancer. Of course, immunotherapy remains a hot topic at all of these conferences. There were three different aspects of immunotherapy I’d like to highlight at this conference in regard to colon and rectal cancer. 

First, Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz presented updated data from CheckMate 8HW, which looked at nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs chemotherapy in the first line for MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient colon cancer. Once again, the data we’ve had now for several years at the 2-year mark are incredibly impressive. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates for nivo/ipi are above 70% and down at around 14% for chemo. 

What was impressive about this meeting is that Dr. Lenz presented PFS2, trying to determine the impact, if any, of subsequent therapy. What was going on here, which I think was ethically responsible by the investigators, was crossover. About two-thirds of the chemo arm crossed over to any form of immuno-oncology (IO), and just under a half crossed over to nivo and ipi. The PFS benefits continued with up-front IO. The way that Dr. Lenz phrased it is that you really never get the chance to win back the benefit that you would derive by giving immunotherapy first line to someone who has MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient metastatic colon cancer. 

One thing that’s still not settled in my mind, though, is, does this really dethrone single-agent immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177? What I’m really driving at is the ipilimumab. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the addition of an anti-CTLA4 agent worth the toxicity that we know comes along with that mechanism of action? Watch this space. 

I was also really interested in NEOPRISM-CRC, which looked at the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant down-staging of radiographically high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer. Here, the investigators really make a strong case that, up front in these potentially respectable cases, not only should we know about mismatch repair deficiency but we should actually be interrogating further for tumor mutational burden (TMB). 

They had TMB-high patients. In fact, the median TMB was 42 mutations per megabase, with really impressive down-staging using three cycles of every-3-week pembrolizumab before surgery. Again, I really think we’re at an exciting time where, even for colon cancer that looks operable up front, we might actually have the opportunity to improve pathologic and clinical complete responses before and after surgery. 

Finally, I want to bring up what continues to amaze me. Two years ago, at ASCO 2022, we heard from Dr. Andrea Cercek and the Memorial Sloan Kettering group about the incredible experience they were having with neoadjuvant, or frankly, definitive dostarlimab in mismatch repair–deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. 

I remember being at the conference and there was simultaneous publication of that abstract in The New York Times because it was so remarkable. There was a 100% clinical complete response. The patients didn’t require radiation, they didn’t require chemotherapy, and they didn’t require surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer, provided there was this vulnerability of mismatch-repair deficiency. 

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Cercek and her group have updated those data with more than 40 patients, and again, a 100% clinical complete response, including mature, complete responses at over a year in about 20 patients. Again, we are really doing our rectal cancer patients a disservice if we’re not checking for mismatch-repair deficiency upfront, and especially if we’re not talking about them in multidisciplinary conferences. 

One of the things that absolutely blows my mind about rectal cancer is just how complicated it’s becoming. I think it is the standard of care to discuss these cases upfront with radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and pathology. 

Maybe the overarching message I would take from everything I’ve said today is that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. It’s really a dyad, a partnership that guides optimal medical oncology care. As much as I love ASCO, I often wish we had more of our pathology colleagues here. I look forward to taking all the findings from this meeting back to the tumor board and really having a dynamic dialogue.

Dr. Lewis is director, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I’m speaking from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we’ve seen some interesting, new data in GI cancers.

If you allow me, I’d like to go in a craniocaudal fashion. It’s my anatomic mnemonic. I think that’s appropriate because our plenary session yesterday kicked off with some exciting data in esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. 

This was the long-awaited ESOPEC trial. It’s a phase 3 study looking at perioperative FLOT (5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel), a chemo triplet, vs the CROSS protocol, which is neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and at first blush, FLOT looked to be the true winner. There were some really remarkable milestones in this study, and I have some reservations about the FLOT arm that I’ll raise in just a second. 

The investigators are to be commended because in a truly deadly disease, they reported a 5-year overall survival in half of the patients who were receiving FLOT. That is truly commendable and really a milestone in our field. The reason I take a little bit of issue with the trial is that I still have some questions about methodology.

It wasn’t that long ago at ASCO GI that there was a really heated debate called “FLOT or Not” — not in this precise setting, but asking the question, do we think that patients with upper GI malignancy are even fit enough to handle a chemo triplet like FLOT? 

The reason I bring that up now in 2024 is that, to my surprise, and I think to many others’, there was a lower-than-expected completion rate of the patients in this trial who were receiving the CROSS regimen. The number of people who were able to complete that in full was about two-thirds, which compared with a historical control from a trial scheme that first emerged over a decade ago that used to be over 90% completion. I found that quite strange. 

I also think this trial suffers a little bit, and unavoidably, from the evolution of care that’s happened since it was first enrolling. Of course, I refer to adjuvant immunotherapy. Now, the real question is whether there is synergy between patients who receive radiation upfront and then adjuvant nivolumab, as per CheckMate 577. 

In her plenary discussion, I thought Dr. Karyn Goodman did a masterful job — I would encourage you to watch it on ASCO’s website —discussing how we can take all these data and reconcile them for optimal patient outcome. She ultimately suggested that we might deploy all four modalities in the management of these people. 

She proposed a paradigm with a PET-adapted, upfront induction chemotherapy, then moving to chemoradiation, then moving to surgery, and finally moving to immunotherapy. That is all four of the traditional arms of oncology. I find that really rather remarkable. Watch that space. This is a great trial with really remarkable survival data, but I’m not entirely convinced that the CROSS arm was given its due. 

Next up, I want to talk about pancreas cancer, which is something near and dear to my heart. It affects about one in four of my patients and it remains, unfortunately, a highly lethal disease. I think the top-line news from this meeting is that the KRAS mutation is druggable. I’m probably showing my age, but when I did my fellowship in 2009 through 2012, I was taught that KRAS was sort of the undruggable mutation par excellence. At this meeting, we’ve seen maturing data in regard to targeting KRAS G12C with both sotorasib and adagrasib. The disease control rates are astounding, at 80% and more, which is really remarkable. I wouldn’t have believed that even a few years ago. 

I’m even more excited about how we bring a rising tide that can lift all boats and apply this to other KRAS mutations, and not just KRAS G12C but all KRAS mutations. I think that’s coming, hopefully, with the pan-RAS inhibitors, because once that happens — if that happens; I’ll try not to be irrationally exuberant — that would take the traditional mutation found in almost all pancreas cancers and really make it its own Achilles heel. I think that could be such a huge leap forward. 

Another matter, however, that remains unresolved at this meeting is in the neoadjuvant setting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. There’s still equipoise, actually, between neoadjuvant gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. I thought that that was very well spelled out by some of our Dutch colleagues, who continue to do great work in a variety of cancers, including colorectal. 

Where I’d like to move next is colorectal cancer. Of course, immunotherapy remains a hot topic at all of these conferences. There were three different aspects of immunotherapy I’d like to highlight at this conference in regard to colon and rectal cancer. 

First, Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz presented updated data from CheckMate 8HW, which looked at nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs chemotherapy in the first line for MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient colon cancer. Once again, the data we’ve had now for several years at the 2-year mark are incredibly impressive. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates for nivo/ipi are above 70% and down at around 14% for chemo. 

What was impressive about this meeting is that Dr. Lenz presented PFS2, trying to determine the impact, if any, of subsequent therapy. What was going on here, which I think was ethically responsible by the investigators, was crossover. About two-thirds of the chemo arm crossed over to any form of immuno-oncology (IO), and just under a half crossed over to nivo and ipi. The PFS benefits continued with up-front IO. The way that Dr. Lenz phrased it is that you really never get the chance to win back the benefit that you would derive by giving immunotherapy first line to someone who has MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient metastatic colon cancer. 

One thing that’s still not settled in my mind, though, is, does this really dethrone single-agent immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177? What I’m really driving at is the ipilimumab. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the addition of an anti-CTLA4 agent worth the toxicity that we know comes along with that mechanism of action? Watch this space. 

I was also really interested in NEOPRISM-CRC, which looked at the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant down-staging of radiographically high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer. Here, the investigators really make a strong case that, up front in these potentially respectable cases, not only should we know about mismatch repair deficiency but we should actually be interrogating further for tumor mutational burden (TMB). 

They had TMB-high patients. In fact, the median TMB was 42 mutations per megabase, with really impressive down-staging using three cycles of every-3-week pembrolizumab before surgery. Again, I really think we’re at an exciting time where, even for colon cancer that looks operable up front, we might actually have the opportunity to improve pathologic and clinical complete responses before and after surgery. 

Finally, I want to bring up what continues to amaze me. Two years ago, at ASCO 2022, we heard from Dr. Andrea Cercek and the Memorial Sloan Kettering group about the incredible experience they were having with neoadjuvant, or frankly, definitive dostarlimab in mismatch repair–deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. 

I remember being at the conference and there was simultaneous publication of that abstract in The New York Times because it was so remarkable. There was a 100% clinical complete response. The patients didn’t require radiation, they didn’t require chemotherapy, and they didn’t require surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer, provided there was this vulnerability of mismatch-repair deficiency. 

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Cercek and her group have updated those data with more than 40 patients, and again, a 100% clinical complete response, including mature, complete responses at over a year in about 20 patients. Again, we are really doing our rectal cancer patients a disservice if we’re not checking for mismatch-repair deficiency upfront, and especially if we’re not talking about them in multidisciplinary conferences. 

One of the things that absolutely blows my mind about rectal cancer is just how complicated it’s becoming. I think it is the standard of care to discuss these cases upfront with radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and pathology. 

Maybe the overarching message I would take from everything I’ve said today is that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. It’s really a dyad, a partnership that guides optimal medical oncology care. As much as I love ASCO, I often wish we had more of our pathology colleagues here. I look forward to taking all the findings from this meeting back to the tumor board and really having a dynamic dialogue.

Dr. Lewis is director, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing meat with plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) can improve cardiovascular disease risk factors, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a review of randomized controlled trials suggested.

Long-term randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that evaluate cardiovascular disease events such as myocardial infarction and stroke are needed to draw definitive conclusions, according to the authors.

“Our take-home is that plant-based meats are a healthy alternative to animal meat, based on intermediate cardiovascular endpoints such as lipids, triglycerides, blood pressure, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors,” said senior author Ehud Ur, MB, professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in Canada, and an endocrinologist at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

“However, we also found that there’s a lack of clinical outcome trials that would determine definitively whether plant-based meats are healthy. But certainly, everything points in the direction of cardiovascular benefit,” said Dr. Ur.

The review was published on June 25 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Ultraprocessed Foods

PBMAs are foods that mimic meats and contain ingredients such as protein derivatives from soy, pea, wheat, and fungi. A growing number of Canadians are limiting meat or excluding it from their diets. Some are opting to eat PBMAs instead.

But most PBMAs are classified as ultraprocessed foods. Such foods are produced primarily from substances extracted from whole food sources, such as sugar, salt, oil, and protein. Alternatively, they may be created in a laboratory using flavor enhancers and food coloring. This classification has caused the public and health professionals to question the potential health implications of PBMAs, said Dr. Ur.

“One of the concerns is that these products are highly processed, and things that are highly processed are considered bad. And so, are you swapping one set of risks for another?” he said.

To shed more light on this question, Dr. Ur’s team, which was led by Matthew Nagra, ND, of the Vancouver Naturopathic Clinic, assessed the literature on PBMAs and their impact on health.

“While the plant-based meat market has experienced significant growth in recent years and more and more Canadians are enjoying plant-based burgers, surprisingly little is known about how these meat alternatives may impact health and, in particular, cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Nagra said in a statement. “Thus, we sought to review the available literature on the topic to identify what is currently known and to provide direction for future research.”
 

Less Saturated Fat, Cholesterol

The researchers assessed the literature that was published from 1970 to 2023 on PBMAs, their contents, nutritional profiles, and impact on cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

They found that, compared with meat, PBMAs had less saturated fat, less cholesterol, more fiber, more carbohydrates, fewer calories, less monounsaturated fat, more polyunsaturated fat, and more sodium.

In addition, several randomized controlled trials showed that PBMAs reduced total cholesterol and LDL-C, as well as apolipoprotein B-100, body weight, and waist circumference. PBMAs were not shown to raise blood pressure, despite some products’ high sodium content.

“No currently available evidence suggests that the concerning aspects of PBMAs (eg, food processing and high sodium content) negate the potential cardiovascular benefits,” wrote the researchers.

Unfortunately, no long-term research has evaluated how these alternatives may affect the risk of developing a myocardial infarction or stroke. Similarly, there is little research on the healthfulness of some common components of PBMAs, such as vital wheat gluten.

To shed light on these important issues would require large clinical trials, involving many patients, and great expense, said Dr. Ur. “Drug companies can afford to do large clinical trials, even if they are expensive to do, because they must do them to get approval for their drug. But these plant-based meats are produced by companies that most likely are not able to do clinical outcome trials. Such trials would have to be done by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, or in Canada, the National Research Council,” he said.

There are many reasons to avoid meat, Dr. Ur added. “There are ethical reasons against killing animals. Then there is the issue of global warming. Meat is a very expensive source of food energy. As an individual, the biggest impact you can make on global warming is to not eat meat. Then there is the argument about personal health, which is where our study comes in. For those people who like the taste of meat and who struggle with giving it up, the PBMAs allow them to have a reasonably diverse diet,” he said.
 

Are Eggs Healthy?

Meat substitutes are helpful for people who want to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk, J. David Spence, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and clinical pharmacology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Eating too much meat and egg yolk increases cardiovascular risk, and it’s a challenge for patients to learn to eat less meat and cut out egg yolks. If we can find good substitutes that are tasty and enjoyable, that’s a good thing,” Dr. Spence told this news organization.

“Besides plant-based meat substitutes, there is great potential for reduction of cardiovascular risk with the use of egg substitutes,” he said.

Dr. Spence pointed out that two large egg yolks contain 474 mg of cholesterol, almost twice the amount contained in a Hardee’s Monster Thickburger (265 mg).

Cholesterol elevates plasma levels of toxic metabolites of the intestinal microbiome, such as trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). Plasma levels of TMAO increase in a linear fashion with egg consumption, and TMAO is bad for the arteries, said Dr. Spence.

“Eggs are terrible and should not be eaten by people at risk for cardiovascular disease. But people don’t understand that because the egg marketing propaganda has been so effective. The yolk is terrible. The egg marketing board is extremely effective in persuading people that eggs are healthy, and they’re not.”

Dr. Spence recommends using egg substitutes, such as Egg Beaters or Better’n Eggs, instead of whole eggs, and says it’s never too late to switch. “That’s the mistake people make, but the arteries can actually improve,” he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Ur and Dr. Spence reported having no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing meat with plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) can improve cardiovascular disease risk factors, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a review of randomized controlled trials suggested.

Long-term randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that evaluate cardiovascular disease events such as myocardial infarction and stroke are needed to draw definitive conclusions, according to the authors.

“Our take-home is that plant-based meats are a healthy alternative to animal meat, based on intermediate cardiovascular endpoints such as lipids, triglycerides, blood pressure, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors,” said senior author Ehud Ur, MB, professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in Canada, and an endocrinologist at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

“However, we also found that there’s a lack of clinical outcome trials that would determine definitively whether plant-based meats are healthy. But certainly, everything points in the direction of cardiovascular benefit,” said Dr. Ur.

The review was published on June 25 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Ultraprocessed Foods

PBMAs are foods that mimic meats and contain ingredients such as protein derivatives from soy, pea, wheat, and fungi. A growing number of Canadians are limiting meat or excluding it from their diets. Some are opting to eat PBMAs instead.

But most PBMAs are classified as ultraprocessed foods. Such foods are produced primarily from substances extracted from whole food sources, such as sugar, salt, oil, and protein. Alternatively, they may be created in a laboratory using flavor enhancers and food coloring. This classification has caused the public and health professionals to question the potential health implications of PBMAs, said Dr. Ur.

“One of the concerns is that these products are highly processed, and things that are highly processed are considered bad. And so, are you swapping one set of risks for another?” he said.

To shed more light on this question, Dr. Ur’s team, which was led by Matthew Nagra, ND, of the Vancouver Naturopathic Clinic, assessed the literature on PBMAs and their impact on health.

“While the plant-based meat market has experienced significant growth in recent years and more and more Canadians are enjoying plant-based burgers, surprisingly little is known about how these meat alternatives may impact health and, in particular, cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Nagra said in a statement. “Thus, we sought to review the available literature on the topic to identify what is currently known and to provide direction for future research.”
 

Less Saturated Fat, Cholesterol

The researchers assessed the literature that was published from 1970 to 2023 on PBMAs, their contents, nutritional profiles, and impact on cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

They found that, compared with meat, PBMAs had less saturated fat, less cholesterol, more fiber, more carbohydrates, fewer calories, less monounsaturated fat, more polyunsaturated fat, and more sodium.

In addition, several randomized controlled trials showed that PBMAs reduced total cholesterol and LDL-C, as well as apolipoprotein B-100, body weight, and waist circumference. PBMAs were not shown to raise blood pressure, despite some products’ high sodium content.

“No currently available evidence suggests that the concerning aspects of PBMAs (eg, food processing and high sodium content) negate the potential cardiovascular benefits,” wrote the researchers.

Unfortunately, no long-term research has evaluated how these alternatives may affect the risk of developing a myocardial infarction or stroke. Similarly, there is little research on the healthfulness of some common components of PBMAs, such as vital wheat gluten.

To shed light on these important issues would require large clinical trials, involving many patients, and great expense, said Dr. Ur. “Drug companies can afford to do large clinical trials, even if they are expensive to do, because they must do them to get approval for their drug. But these plant-based meats are produced by companies that most likely are not able to do clinical outcome trials. Such trials would have to be done by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, or in Canada, the National Research Council,” he said.

There are many reasons to avoid meat, Dr. Ur added. “There are ethical reasons against killing animals. Then there is the issue of global warming. Meat is a very expensive source of food energy. As an individual, the biggest impact you can make on global warming is to not eat meat. Then there is the argument about personal health, which is where our study comes in. For those people who like the taste of meat and who struggle with giving it up, the PBMAs allow them to have a reasonably diverse diet,” he said.
 

Are Eggs Healthy?

Meat substitutes are helpful for people who want to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk, J. David Spence, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and clinical pharmacology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Eating too much meat and egg yolk increases cardiovascular risk, and it’s a challenge for patients to learn to eat less meat and cut out egg yolks. If we can find good substitutes that are tasty and enjoyable, that’s a good thing,” Dr. Spence told this news organization.

“Besides plant-based meat substitutes, there is great potential for reduction of cardiovascular risk with the use of egg substitutes,” he said.

Dr. Spence pointed out that two large egg yolks contain 474 mg of cholesterol, almost twice the amount contained in a Hardee’s Monster Thickburger (265 mg).

Cholesterol elevates plasma levels of toxic metabolites of the intestinal microbiome, such as trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). Plasma levels of TMAO increase in a linear fashion with egg consumption, and TMAO is bad for the arteries, said Dr. Spence.

“Eggs are terrible and should not be eaten by people at risk for cardiovascular disease. But people don’t understand that because the egg marketing propaganda has been so effective. The yolk is terrible. The egg marketing board is extremely effective in persuading people that eggs are healthy, and they’re not.”

Dr. Spence recommends using egg substitutes, such as Egg Beaters or Better’n Eggs, instead of whole eggs, and says it’s never too late to switch. “That’s the mistake people make, but the arteries can actually improve,” he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Ur and Dr. Spence reported having no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing meat with plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) can improve cardiovascular disease risk factors, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a review of randomized controlled trials suggested.

Long-term randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that evaluate cardiovascular disease events such as myocardial infarction and stroke are needed to draw definitive conclusions, according to the authors.

“Our take-home is that plant-based meats are a healthy alternative to animal meat, based on intermediate cardiovascular endpoints such as lipids, triglycerides, blood pressure, and other cardiovascular disease risk factors,” said senior author Ehud Ur, MB, professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, in Canada, and an endocrinologist at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.

“However, we also found that there’s a lack of clinical outcome trials that would determine definitively whether plant-based meats are healthy. But certainly, everything points in the direction of cardiovascular benefit,” said Dr. Ur.

The review was published on June 25 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Ultraprocessed Foods

PBMAs are foods that mimic meats and contain ingredients such as protein derivatives from soy, pea, wheat, and fungi. A growing number of Canadians are limiting meat or excluding it from their diets. Some are opting to eat PBMAs instead.

But most PBMAs are classified as ultraprocessed foods. Such foods are produced primarily from substances extracted from whole food sources, such as sugar, salt, oil, and protein. Alternatively, they may be created in a laboratory using flavor enhancers and food coloring. This classification has caused the public and health professionals to question the potential health implications of PBMAs, said Dr. Ur.

“One of the concerns is that these products are highly processed, and things that are highly processed are considered bad. And so, are you swapping one set of risks for another?” he said.

To shed more light on this question, Dr. Ur’s team, which was led by Matthew Nagra, ND, of the Vancouver Naturopathic Clinic, assessed the literature on PBMAs and their impact on health.

“While the plant-based meat market has experienced significant growth in recent years and more and more Canadians are enjoying plant-based burgers, surprisingly little is known about how these meat alternatives may impact health and, in particular, cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Nagra said in a statement. “Thus, we sought to review the available literature on the topic to identify what is currently known and to provide direction for future research.”
 

Less Saturated Fat, Cholesterol

The researchers assessed the literature that was published from 1970 to 2023 on PBMAs, their contents, nutritional profiles, and impact on cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

They found that, compared with meat, PBMAs had less saturated fat, less cholesterol, more fiber, more carbohydrates, fewer calories, less monounsaturated fat, more polyunsaturated fat, and more sodium.

In addition, several randomized controlled trials showed that PBMAs reduced total cholesterol and LDL-C, as well as apolipoprotein B-100, body weight, and waist circumference. PBMAs were not shown to raise blood pressure, despite some products’ high sodium content.

“No currently available evidence suggests that the concerning aspects of PBMAs (eg, food processing and high sodium content) negate the potential cardiovascular benefits,” wrote the researchers.

Unfortunately, no long-term research has evaluated how these alternatives may affect the risk of developing a myocardial infarction or stroke. Similarly, there is little research on the healthfulness of some common components of PBMAs, such as vital wheat gluten.

To shed light on these important issues would require large clinical trials, involving many patients, and great expense, said Dr. Ur. “Drug companies can afford to do large clinical trials, even if they are expensive to do, because they must do them to get approval for their drug. But these plant-based meats are produced by companies that most likely are not able to do clinical outcome trials. Such trials would have to be done by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, or in Canada, the National Research Council,” he said.

There are many reasons to avoid meat, Dr. Ur added. “There are ethical reasons against killing animals. Then there is the issue of global warming. Meat is a very expensive source of food energy. As an individual, the biggest impact you can make on global warming is to not eat meat. Then there is the argument about personal health, which is where our study comes in. For those people who like the taste of meat and who struggle with giving it up, the PBMAs allow them to have a reasonably diverse diet,” he said.
 

Are Eggs Healthy?

Meat substitutes are helpful for people who want to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk, J. David Spence, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and clinical pharmacology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Eating too much meat and egg yolk increases cardiovascular risk, and it’s a challenge for patients to learn to eat less meat and cut out egg yolks. If we can find good substitutes that are tasty and enjoyable, that’s a good thing,” Dr. Spence told this news organization.

“Besides plant-based meat substitutes, there is great potential for reduction of cardiovascular risk with the use of egg substitutes,” he said.

Dr. Spence pointed out that two large egg yolks contain 474 mg of cholesterol, almost twice the amount contained in a Hardee’s Monster Thickburger (265 mg).

Cholesterol elevates plasma levels of toxic metabolites of the intestinal microbiome, such as trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). Plasma levels of TMAO increase in a linear fashion with egg consumption, and TMAO is bad for the arteries, said Dr. Spence.

“Eggs are terrible and should not be eaten by people at risk for cardiovascular disease. But people don’t understand that because the egg marketing propaganda has been so effective. The yolk is terrible. The egg marketing board is extremely effective in persuading people that eggs are healthy, and they’re not.”

Dr. Spence recommends using egg substitutes, such as Egg Beaters or Better’n Eggs, instead of whole eggs, and says it’s never too late to switch. “That’s the mistake people make, but the arteries can actually improve,” he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Ur and Dr. Spence reported having no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

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:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

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:

Nearly half of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA) no longer met the criteria for that status at the end of a 5-year period by achieving disease remission or low disease activity with additional treatment modifications.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cohort study included 150 patients with D2T RA, as defined by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, in 2018 at Keio University Hospital, Tokyo.
• The researchers followed patients until 2023 and collected data on demographics, treatment changes, disease activity, and outcomes.
• D2T RA resolution was defined as achieving remission or low disease activity for ≥ 3 consecutive months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 45% of patients achieved resolution of D2T RA at a mean duration of 24.1 months.
• Treatment changes were more frequent in patients with resolved disease vs those with persistent D2T RA (83.6% vs 58.7%; P = .002).
• Patients with resolved D2T RA were more frequently treated with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors in 2023 vs 2018 (35.8% vs 20.0%; P = .04) and less often treated with prednisolone (14.9% vs 38.7%; P < .001).
• Over 5 years, 5% of the patients died; increased glucocorticoid doses were linked to mortality (P = .002).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although a treatment strategy for difficult-to-treat RA has not yet been established, our study suggests that the optimal treatment choice for patients with difficult-to-treat RA is distinct, based on the causes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Satoshi Takanashi, MD, PhD, from Keio University School of Medicine in Tokyo. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s single-center design and relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Treatment changes were decided by attending doctors, which could introduce bias. The investigators were also unable to determine the impact of any comorbid fibromyalgia in the patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the JCR Grant for Promoting Research for Difficult-to-Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, a KAKENHI grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and Keio University Medical Science Fund. Each of the study’s three authors reported financial relationships with various manufacturers of drugs for RA.

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.

Hepatitis B (Hep B) is a liver infection against which vaccination was previously recommended for certain eligible risk groups. However, in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) switched from recommending vaccination for at-risk persons to recommending universal vaccination for children and adults.

That includes infants, children 18 years of age and younger, adults aged 19-59, and people aged 60 and up with risk factors for this viral infection. Even those aged 60 and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may receive Hep B vaccines.

Risk factors under prior recommendations included potential criminal or stigmatizing behaviors such as injection-drug use, incarceration, or multiple sex partners, which limited risk assessment by providers. The CDC points out that universal adult Hep B vaccination through age 59 obviates the need for the previous approach of risk-factor screening and sensitive disclosures to determine eligibility and could increase vaccination coverage and reduce cases.

“A universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination could increase the number of persons who receive vaccination before the onset of chronic liver disease and other comorbidities (e.g., obesity or diabetes) that might make vaccination less effective,” the CDC stated, noting that patients with chronic liver disease have a reduced immune response to Hep B vaccination. Hep B vaccination also protects against hepatitis D.

“Most people born in the US are vaccinated during infancy, beginning on the first day of life,” Lauren D. Block, MD, an internist at Northwell Health and an assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at sites in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

Typically, Dr. Block added, at-risk persons will have titers drawn to make sure they are immune to Hep B. “Titers can wane over the decades in healthy people, in which case a booster shot may be needed, or a restart of the three-part vaccination series if a person is not sure if they were vaccinated previously.” Those at greater risk include people with weakened immune systems, people with diabetes or on immunosuppressives, healthcare workers, travelers to higher-risk countries, people with multiple sexual partners, and IV drug users.

Although Hep B vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past four decades, coverage among US adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in infections, the CDC noted.

Hepatitis A

Though not widely endemic to North America, Hep A can be acquired during travel abroad, particularly to developing countries, or through exposure to unsanitary conditions and contaminated food or water.

The CDC recommends routine Hep A vaccination for all children aged 12-23 months, all unvaccinated children and adolescents 2-18 years, and all persons, including those who are pregnant, with increased risk factors for this orally and fecally transmitted infection or at risk for severe disease from it. At-risk groups include international travelers to affected regions, men who have sex with men, incarcerated individuals or group-home residents, injection and non-injection drug users, and homeless persons.
 

Hepatitis C and E

There is no vaccine for Hep C, and no FDA-approved vaccine in the United States for hepatitis E, although a vaccine for the latter was approved in China in 2012.

As with Hep A, observing strict water, food, and sanitation standards is essential for preventing infection with hepatitis E.

Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

Hepatitis B (Hep B) is a liver infection against which vaccination was previously recommended for certain eligible risk groups. However, in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) switched from recommending vaccination for at-risk persons to recommending universal vaccination for children and adults.

That includes infants, children 18 years of age and younger, adults aged 19-59, and people aged 60 and up with risk factors for this viral infection. Even those aged 60 and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may receive Hep B vaccines.

Risk factors under prior recommendations included potential criminal or stigmatizing behaviors such as injection-drug use, incarceration, or multiple sex partners, which limited risk assessment by providers. The CDC points out that universal adult Hep B vaccination through age 59 obviates the need for the previous approach of risk-factor screening and sensitive disclosures to determine eligibility and could increase vaccination coverage and reduce cases.

“A universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination could increase the number of persons who receive vaccination before the onset of chronic liver disease and other comorbidities (e.g., obesity or diabetes) that might make vaccination less effective,” the CDC stated, noting that patients with chronic liver disease have a reduced immune response to Hep B vaccination. Hep B vaccination also protects against hepatitis D.

“Most people born in the US are vaccinated during infancy, beginning on the first day of life,” Lauren D. Block, MD, an internist at Northwell Health and an assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at sites in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

Typically, Dr. Block added, at-risk persons will have titers drawn to make sure they are immune to Hep B. “Titers can wane over the decades in healthy people, in which case a booster shot may be needed, or a restart of the three-part vaccination series if a person is not sure if they were vaccinated previously.” Those at greater risk include people with weakened immune systems, people with diabetes or on immunosuppressives, healthcare workers, travelers to higher-risk countries, people with multiple sexual partners, and IV drug users.

Although Hep B vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past four decades, coverage among US adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in infections, the CDC noted.

Hepatitis A

Though not widely endemic to North America, Hep A can be acquired during travel abroad, particularly to developing countries, or through exposure to unsanitary conditions and contaminated food or water.

The CDC recommends routine Hep A vaccination for all children aged 12-23 months, all unvaccinated children and adolescents 2-18 years, and all persons, including those who are pregnant, with increased risk factors for this orally and fecally transmitted infection or at risk for severe disease from it. At-risk groups include international travelers to affected regions, men who have sex with men, incarcerated individuals or group-home residents, injection and non-injection drug users, and homeless persons.
 

Hepatitis C and E

There is no vaccine for Hep C, and no FDA-approved vaccine in the United States for hepatitis E, although a vaccine for the latter was approved in China in 2012.

As with Hep A, observing strict water, food, and sanitation standards is essential for preventing infection with hepatitis E.

Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

Hepatitis B (Hep B) is a liver infection against which vaccination was previously recommended for certain eligible risk groups. However, in 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) switched from recommending vaccination for at-risk persons to recommending universal vaccination for children and adults.

That includes infants, children 18 years of age and younger, adults aged 19-59, and people aged 60 and up with risk factors for this viral infection. Even those aged 60 and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may receive Hep B vaccines.

Risk factors under prior recommendations included potential criminal or stigmatizing behaviors such as injection-drug use, incarceration, or multiple sex partners, which limited risk assessment by providers. The CDC points out that universal adult Hep B vaccination through age 59 obviates the need for the previous approach of risk-factor screening and sensitive disclosures to determine eligibility and could increase vaccination coverage and reduce cases.

“A universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination could increase the number of persons who receive vaccination before the onset of chronic liver disease and other comorbidities (e.g., obesity or diabetes) that might make vaccination less effective,” the CDC stated, noting that patients with chronic liver disease have a reduced immune response to Hep B vaccination. Hep B vaccination also protects against hepatitis D.

“Most people born in the US are vaccinated during infancy, beginning on the first day of life,” Lauren D. Block, MD, an internist at Northwell Health and an assistant professor in the Institute of Health System Science at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at sites in metropolitan New York City, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institute for Medical Research

Typically, Dr. Block added, at-risk persons will have titers drawn to make sure they are immune to Hep B. “Titers can wane over the decades in healthy people, in which case a booster shot may be needed, or a restart of the three-part vaccination series if a person is not sure if they were vaccinated previously.” Those at greater risk include people with weakened immune systems, people with diabetes or on immunosuppressives, healthcare workers, travelers to higher-risk countries, people with multiple sexual partners, and IV drug users.

Although Hep B vaccines have demonstrated safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy during the past four decades, coverage among US adults has been suboptimal, limiting further reduction in infections, the CDC noted.

Hepatitis A

Though not widely endemic to North America, Hep A can be acquired during travel abroad, particularly to developing countries, or through exposure to unsanitary conditions and contaminated food or water.

The CDC recommends routine Hep A vaccination for all children aged 12-23 months, all unvaccinated children and adolescents 2-18 years, and all persons, including those who are pregnant, with increased risk factors for this orally and fecally transmitted infection or at risk for severe disease from it. At-risk groups include international travelers to affected regions, men who have sex with men, incarcerated individuals or group-home residents, injection and non-injection drug users, and homeless persons.
 

Hepatitis C and E

There is no vaccine for Hep C, and no FDA-approved vaccine in the United States for hepatitis E, although a vaccine for the latter was approved in China in 2012.

As with Hep A, observing strict water, food, and sanitation standards is essential for preventing infection with hepatitis E.

Dr. Block disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of new retinal tears and detachments after cataract surgery in patients with previously treated phakic retinal tears is relatively high, occurring in nearly one out of every 18 eyes within a year of surgery, with younger men being particularly vulnerable.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective review of 12,109 phakic eyes treated for retinal tears with laser photocoagulation or cryotherapy between April 1, 2012, and May 31, 2023.
• Cataract surgery was subsequently performed in a total of 1039 (8.6%) eyes during the follow-up period, with 713 eyes of 660 patients meeting the inclusion criteria.
• The mean duration of follow-up after the primary treatment of phakic retinal tears and after cataract surgery was 56.6 and 34.8 months, respectively.
• The primary outcome measures were the incidence of retinal tears or detachments following cataract surgery; secondary outcomes were the risk factors for a diagnosis of retinal tears or detachments and visual and anatomic results.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall incidence of a retinal tear or detachment following cataract surgery was 7.3% during the follow-up period, with a 1-year incidence of 5.6%.
• The factors significantly associated with the risk for retinal tear or detachment after surgery included younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; P = .028) and male gender (OR, 2.06; P = .022).
• Visual acuity significantly worsened at the time of diagnosis of retinal detachment after cataract surgery (median log of the minimal angle of resolution, 0.18; P = .009).
• About 80.6% of the cases achieved anatomical success after a single surgery for the repair of retinal detachment following cataract surgery at 3 months, with a 100% success rate for reattachment.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is essential to conduct a thorough preoperative assessment and to maintain high level of suspicion for additional retinal breaks,” the authors wrote. “Educating patients on warning symptoms is crucial for early detection and treatment of [retinal detachment], thereby helping to prevent further complications,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bita Momenaei, MD, from the Wills Eye Hospital of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. It was published online in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study limits firm conclusions about the risk factors for retinal tear or detachment after cataract surgery. Some diagnosed tears might have been pre-existing but became visible post-surgery due to improved clarity. The incidence data on retinal tear or detachment were limited to patients who returned for follow-up at the facility, potentially underestimating true incidence rates.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the J. Arch McNamara, MD, Fund for Retina Research and Education. Some of the authors declared serving as consultants or receiving research grants from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of new retinal tears and detachments after cataract surgery in patients with previously treated phakic retinal tears is relatively high, occurring in nearly one out of every 18 eyes within a year of surgery, with younger men being particularly vulnerable.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective review of 12,109 phakic eyes treated for retinal tears with laser photocoagulation or cryotherapy between April 1, 2012, and May 31, 2023.
• Cataract surgery was subsequently performed in a total of 1039 (8.6%) eyes during the follow-up period, with 713 eyes of 660 patients meeting the inclusion criteria.
• The mean duration of follow-up after the primary treatment of phakic retinal tears and after cataract surgery was 56.6 and 34.8 months, respectively.
• The primary outcome measures were the incidence of retinal tears or detachments following cataract surgery; secondary outcomes were the risk factors for a diagnosis of retinal tears or detachments and visual and anatomic results.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall incidence of a retinal tear or detachment following cataract surgery was 7.3% during the follow-up period, with a 1-year incidence of 5.6%.
• The factors significantly associated with the risk for retinal tear or detachment after surgery included younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; P = .028) and male gender (OR, 2.06; P = .022).
• Visual acuity significantly worsened at the time of diagnosis of retinal detachment after cataract surgery (median log of the minimal angle of resolution, 0.18; P = .009).
• About 80.6% of the cases achieved anatomical success after a single surgery for the repair of retinal detachment following cataract surgery at 3 months, with a 100% success rate for reattachment.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is essential to conduct a thorough preoperative assessment and to maintain high level of suspicion for additional retinal breaks,” the authors wrote. “Educating patients on warning symptoms is crucial for early detection and treatment of [retinal detachment], thereby helping to prevent further complications,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bita Momenaei, MD, from the Wills Eye Hospital of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. It was published online in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study limits firm conclusions about the risk factors for retinal tear or detachment after cataract surgery. Some diagnosed tears might have been pre-existing but became visible post-surgery due to improved clarity. The incidence data on retinal tear or detachment were limited to patients who returned for follow-up at the facility, potentially underestimating true incidence rates.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the J. Arch McNamara, MD, Fund for Retina Research and Education. Some of the authors declared serving as consultants or receiving research grants from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of new retinal tears and detachments after cataract surgery in patients with previously treated phakic retinal tears is relatively high, occurring in nearly one out of every 18 eyes within a year of surgery, with younger men being particularly vulnerable.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective review of 12,109 phakic eyes treated for retinal tears with laser photocoagulation or cryotherapy between April 1, 2012, and May 31, 2023.
• Cataract surgery was subsequently performed in a total of 1039 (8.6%) eyes during the follow-up period, with 713 eyes of 660 patients meeting the inclusion criteria.
• The mean duration of follow-up after the primary treatment of phakic retinal tears and after cataract surgery was 56.6 and 34.8 months, respectively.
• The primary outcome measures were the incidence of retinal tears or detachments following cataract surgery; secondary outcomes were the risk factors for a diagnosis of retinal tears or detachments and visual and anatomic results.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall incidence of a retinal tear or detachment following cataract surgery was 7.3% during the follow-up period, with a 1-year incidence of 5.6%.
• The factors significantly associated with the risk for retinal tear or detachment after surgery included younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; P = .028) and male gender (OR, 2.06; P = .022).
• Visual acuity significantly worsened at the time of diagnosis of retinal detachment after cataract surgery (median log of the minimal angle of resolution, 0.18; P = .009).
• About 80.6% of the cases achieved anatomical success after a single surgery for the repair of retinal detachment following cataract surgery at 3 months, with a 100% success rate for reattachment.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is essential to conduct a thorough preoperative assessment and to maintain high level of suspicion for additional retinal breaks,” the authors wrote. “Educating patients on warning symptoms is crucial for early detection and treatment of [retinal detachment], thereby helping to prevent further complications,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bita Momenaei, MD, from the Wills Eye Hospital of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. It was published online in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study limits firm conclusions about the risk factors for retinal tear or detachment after cataract surgery. Some diagnosed tears might have been pre-existing but became visible post-surgery due to improved clarity. The incidence data on retinal tear or detachment were limited to patients who returned for follow-up at the facility, potentially underestimating true incidence rates.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the J. Arch McNamara, MD, Fund for Retina Research and Education. Some of the authors declared serving as consultants or receiving research grants from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Safe and effective options for lowering serum uric acid (sUA) in patients with gout who are refractory to conventional therapies appear to be near, judging from phase 2 and 3 trials that produced positive results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reports from the meeting included two phase 2 studies with novel urate anion transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitors for patients with refractory gout, in addition to extension data from the phase 3 trial program for SEL-212. In all cases, efficacy appeared to be on the same order of currently available drugs with potentially better tolerability, an important unmet need for patients with gout refractory to traditional therapies.
 

12-Month Outcomes With SEL-212

The extension data with SEL-212 follow the 6-month results presented from the DISSOLVE I and II trials at EULAR 2023. Now at 12 months, the benefits have proven to be generally sustained with no new safety signals, according to Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, The Center for Rheumatology and Bone Research, Wheaton, Maryland.

Arthritis Foundation

SEL-212 is a drug platform involving two components delivered by intravenous infusion once monthly in sequence. The first, SEL-110, consists of tolerogenic nanoparticles containing sirolimus. The second, SEL-037, is the pegylated uricase pegadricase.

On the 1-month dosing schedule, most patients who had responded at 6 months were still responding at 12 months, and both of the two study doses of SEL-212 in the DISSOLVE trials were well tolerated over the extension, Dr. Baraf reported.

On the basis of the data so far, “this will be an effective and well tolerated therapy for refractory gout over a period of at least 12 months,” Dr. Baraf said.

The DISSOLVE I and II trials were identically designed. Patients with refractory gout, defined as failure to normalize sUA or control symptoms with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive 0.15 mg SEL-212, 1.0 mg SEL-212, or placebo.

There was a stopping rule for patients who reached a sUA level < 2 mg/dL 1 hour after the infusion.

The primary endpoint was sUA level < 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the sixth month of the 6-month trial. About 50% of patients on either dose of SEL-212 met this endpoint (vs 4% of those receiving placebo; P < .0001). There was a numerical advantage for the higher dose in both studies.

Patients who completed the 6-month trial were eligible for a 6-month extension, during which they remained on their assigned therapy, including placebo. This phase was also blinded. Patients who met the stopping rule in either the main study or extension did not take the study drug but remained in the study for final analysis.

Of the 265 patients who participated in the main phase of the study, 143 (54%) completed the 6-month extension. Most discontinuations were the result of the stopping rule. Reasons for other patients discontinuing the study included withdrawal of consent in about 10% of each treatment arm and adverse events in 13.8%, 6.8%, and 2.2% of the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively.

At 12 months, when the data from the two trials were pooled, the proportion of patients on therapy and responding remained at about 50% in the high-dose group and 43% in the low-dose group on an intention-to-treat analysis. Relative to the 8% response rate for placebo, the advantage for either dose was highly significant (P < .0001).

In the subgroup of patients with tophi at baseline, representing about half the study group, responses were low at 12 months, whether on high- (41%) or low-dose (43%) SEL-212. The rate of response among placebo patients with baseline tophi was 9%.
 

Safety of SEL-212

The safety over the 6-month extension did not differ substantially from that observed during the first 6 months, according to Dr. Baraf. This was reiterated in more detail by Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania. He delivered a separate safety presentation focused on DISSOLVE I.

Specifically, there were no serious adverse events thought to be related to treatment. Besides gout flares, which affected approximately 27% of patients regardless of active treatment or placebo assignment, the most common adverse effect was hypertriglyceridemia, which was observed in 5.4% of patients on active treatment vs 0% of those receiving placebo. Independent of the treatment arm, less than 5% of patients developed stomatitis or cellulitis during the 6-month extension period.

In the 6-month extension phase, there were no infusion reactions observed within 1 hour after SEL-212 administration and just two overall that occurred with low-dose SEL-212, according to Kivitz.

New Selective URAT1 Inhibitors

The other potential advance in the treatment of refractory gout is coming from newer selective URAT1 inhibitors. According to the lead investigators of two phase 2 trials evaluating a novel URAT1 inhibitor, the urate transporter protein has long been considered the most promising target for gout treatment. As this protein regulates the absorption of uric acid from the renal tubule, it has a direct uric acid–lowering effect. However, the adverse events of current agents, such as probenecid, benzbromarone, and sulfinpyrazone, have created a need for drugs with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

In one of two multicenter phase 2 studies on refractory gout, the experimental agent ruzinurad was tested as an adjunct to the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. In the other, the objective was to evaluate whether the experimental agent AR882 or AR882 plus allopurinol is better than allopurinol alone for reducing tophi at 12 months.
 

Ruzinurad Plus Febuxostat

In the ruzinurad trial, 151 patients with symptomatic gout and elevated sUA (> 6 mg/dL) for at least 6 weeks on stable doses of febuxostat were randomized to receive 5 mg ruzinurad, 10 mg ruzinurad, or placebo. All remained on febuxostat. In the active treatment arms, the starting ruzinurad dose was 1 mg before titrating up to the assigned target.

For the primary endpoint of sUA < 6 mg/dL at 12 weeks, the rates were 56.9%, 53.1%, and 13.7% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both ruzinurad arms), reported Huihua Ding, MD, a clinician and researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

“Consistently, subgroup analyses based on baseline eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], sUA, and tophus demonstrated superior effective of ruzinurad plus febuxostat over placebo plus febuxostat,” reported Dr. Ding, who noted that previous clinical studies suggested the potential for synergism between ruzinurad and febuxostat.

The proportion of patients achieving the more rigorous target of < 0.5 mg/dL was also higher with the higher and lower doses of ruzinurad vs placebo (43.1% and 38.8% vs 9.8%, respectively).

The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent side effects did not differ between the three groups. The most common were gout flares, which were observed in 39.2%, 49.0%, and 45.1% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, and none led to treatment discontinuation.

The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of ruzinurad was attributed by Dr. Ding to its high relative selectivity and potent inhibition of URAT1, an advantage that might be relevant to avoiding side effects at higher doses.

AR882 in Patients With Tophi

In the trial with AR882, 42 patients with refractory gout and at least one subcutaneous tophus were randomized to receive 75 mg AR882, 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All drugs were taken once daily. Doses of allopurinol of up to 300 mg were permitted.

The changes in the target tophus area and crystal volume at month 6 were compared, and patients who completed this phase were invited into a 6-month extension. In the 6-month extension, 75 mg AR882 was additionally provided to those who had been in the single-agent allopurinol arm. The other arms were unchanged.

Tophi measurements were performed with calipers at regular intervals. Change from baseline in sUA levels was also an efficacy measure, according to Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which is developing AR882.

From average baseline sUA levels of > 9 mg/dL, all three treatments reduced sUA levels by an average of at least 4.5 mg by month 3. At month 6, complete resolution of at least one target tophus was observed in 29% of the group randomized to receive 75 mg AR882 alone, 8% of those randomized to receive 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 8% of those on allopurinol alone.

At month 12, the average sUA levels were 4.3 mg/dL for 75 mg AR882, 3.7 mg/dL for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 2.9 mg/dL for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm.

At the 12-month mark, the proportions of patients with complete resolution of any tophus were 50.0% for 75 mg AR882, 12.5% for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 36.4% for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm, according to Dr. Keenan.

Compared with allopurinol alone at 6 months, 75 mg AR882 led to a reduction in total urate crystal volume, and this reduction was sustained at 12 months, he added.

Alone or in combination with allopurinol, AR882 was well tolerated. Gout flares were the most common adverse events, but they declined with continued AR882 treatment, according to Dr. Keenan. Diarrhea, headache, and upper respiratory infections were reported but were of mild or moderate severity.

Again, the take-home message from this study, like the other phase 2 study of a novel URAT1 inhibitor, is that these newer drugs might offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio, particularly in those with refractory disease.

“AR882 may offer improved efficacy and better safety compared to existing therapies in the treatment of patients with gout, including those with both clinically visible and subclinical crystal deposition,” Dr. Keenan said.

Dr. Baraf reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics, Fresenius Kabi, Grünenthal, Olatec, Selecta Biosciences, and Sobi, which provided funding for the trials he discussed. Dr. Kivitz also reported a financial relationship with Sobi, which funded the DISSOLVE trials, along with AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Flexion, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Regeneron. Dr. Ding reported no potential conflicts. The study she discussed was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keenan is an employee of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 1, 2024 — Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of infusion reactions reported in the 6-month extension phase of the DISSOLVE I trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Safe and effective options for lowering serum uric acid (sUA) in patients with gout who are refractory to conventional therapies appear to be near, judging from phase 2 and 3 trials that produced positive results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reports from the meeting included two phase 2 studies with novel urate anion transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitors for patients with refractory gout, in addition to extension data from the phase 3 trial program for SEL-212. In all cases, efficacy appeared to be on the same order of currently available drugs with potentially better tolerability, an important unmet need for patients with gout refractory to traditional therapies.
 

12-Month Outcomes With SEL-212

The extension data with SEL-212 follow the 6-month results presented from the DISSOLVE I and II trials at EULAR 2023. Now at 12 months, the benefits have proven to be generally sustained with no new safety signals, according to Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, The Center for Rheumatology and Bone Research, Wheaton, Maryland.

Arthritis Foundation

SEL-212 is a drug platform involving two components delivered by intravenous infusion once monthly in sequence. The first, SEL-110, consists of tolerogenic nanoparticles containing sirolimus. The second, SEL-037, is the pegylated uricase pegadricase.

On the 1-month dosing schedule, most patients who had responded at 6 months were still responding at 12 months, and both of the two study doses of SEL-212 in the DISSOLVE trials were well tolerated over the extension, Dr. Baraf reported.

On the basis of the data so far, “this will be an effective and well tolerated therapy for refractory gout over a period of at least 12 months,” Dr. Baraf said.

The DISSOLVE I and II trials were identically designed. Patients with refractory gout, defined as failure to normalize sUA or control symptoms with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive 0.15 mg SEL-212, 1.0 mg SEL-212, or placebo.

There was a stopping rule for patients who reached a sUA level < 2 mg/dL 1 hour after the infusion.

The primary endpoint was sUA level < 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the sixth month of the 6-month trial. About 50% of patients on either dose of SEL-212 met this endpoint (vs 4% of those receiving placebo; P < .0001). There was a numerical advantage for the higher dose in both studies.

Patients who completed the 6-month trial were eligible for a 6-month extension, during which they remained on their assigned therapy, including placebo. This phase was also blinded. Patients who met the stopping rule in either the main study or extension did not take the study drug but remained in the study for final analysis.

Of the 265 patients who participated in the main phase of the study, 143 (54%) completed the 6-month extension. Most discontinuations were the result of the stopping rule. Reasons for other patients discontinuing the study included withdrawal of consent in about 10% of each treatment arm and adverse events in 13.8%, 6.8%, and 2.2% of the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively.

At 12 months, when the data from the two trials were pooled, the proportion of patients on therapy and responding remained at about 50% in the high-dose group and 43% in the low-dose group on an intention-to-treat analysis. Relative to the 8% response rate for placebo, the advantage for either dose was highly significant (P < .0001).

In the subgroup of patients with tophi at baseline, representing about half the study group, responses were low at 12 months, whether on high- (41%) or low-dose (43%) SEL-212. The rate of response among placebo patients with baseline tophi was 9%.
 

Safety of SEL-212

The safety over the 6-month extension did not differ substantially from that observed during the first 6 months, according to Dr. Baraf. This was reiterated in more detail by Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania. He delivered a separate safety presentation focused on DISSOLVE I.

Specifically, there were no serious adverse events thought to be related to treatment. Besides gout flares, which affected approximately 27% of patients regardless of active treatment or placebo assignment, the most common adverse effect was hypertriglyceridemia, which was observed in 5.4% of patients on active treatment vs 0% of those receiving placebo. Independent of the treatment arm, less than 5% of patients developed stomatitis or cellulitis during the 6-month extension period.

In the 6-month extension phase, there were no infusion reactions observed within 1 hour after SEL-212 administration and just two overall that occurred with low-dose SEL-212, according to Kivitz.

New Selective URAT1 Inhibitors

The other potential advance in the treatment of refractory gout is coming from newer selective URAT1 inhibitors. According to the lead investigators of two phase 2 trials evaluating a novel URAT1 inhibitor, the urate transporter protein has long been considered the most promising target for gout treatment. As this protein regulates the absorption of uric acid from the renal tubule, it has a direct uric acid–lowering effect. However, the adverse events of current agents, such as probenecid, benzbromarone, and sulfinpyrazone, have created a need for drugs with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

In one of two multicenter phase 2 studies on refractory gout, the experimental agent ruzinurad was tested as an adjunct to the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. In the other, the objective was to evaluate whether the experimental agent AR882 or AR882 plus allopurinol is better than allopurinol alone for reducing tophi at 12 months.
 

Ruzinurad Plus Febuxostat

In the ruzinurad trial, 151 patients with symptomatic gout and elevated sUA (> 6 mg/dL) for at least 6 weeks on stable doses of febuxostat were randomized to receive 5 mg ruzinurad, 10 mg ruzinurad, or placebo. All remained on febuxostat. In the active treatment arms, the starting ruzinurad dose was 1 mg before titrating up to the assigned target.

For the primary endpoint of sUA < 6 mg/dL at 12 weeks, the rates were 56.9%, 53.1%, and 13.7% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both ruzinurad arms), reported Huihua Ding, MD, a clinician and researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

“Consistently, subgroup analyses based on baseline eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], sUA, and tophus demonstrated superior effective of ruzinurad plus febuxostat over placebo plus febuxostat,” reported Dr. Ding, who noted that previous clinical studies suggested the potential for synergism between ruzinurad and febuxostat.

The proportion of patients achieving the more rigorous target of < 0.5 mg/dL was also higher with the higher and lower doses of ruzinurad vs placebo (43.1% and 38.8% vs 9.8%, respectively).

The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent side effects did not differ between the three groups. The most common were gout flares, which were observed in 39.2%, 49.0%, and 45.1% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, and none led to treatment discontinuation.

The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of ruzinurad was attributed by Dr. Ding to its high relative selectivity and potent inhibition of URAT1, an advantage that might be relevant to avoiding side effects at higher doses.

AR882 in Patients With Tophi

In the trial with AR882, 42 patients with refractory gout and at least one subcutaneous tophus were randomized to receive 75 mg AR882, 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All drugs were taken once daily. Doses of allopurinol of up to 300 mg were permitted.

The changes in the target tophus area and crystal volume at month 6 were compared, and patients who completed this phase were invited into a 6-month extension. In the 6-month extension, 75 mg AR882 was additionally provided to those who had been in the single-agent allopurinol arm. The other arms were unchanged.

Tophi measurements were performed with calipers at regular intervals. Change from baseline in sUA levels was also an efficacy measure, according to Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which is developing AR882.

From average baseline sUA levels of > 9 mg/dL, all three treatments reduced sUA levels by an average of at least 4.5 mg by month 3. At month 6, complete resolution of at least one target tophus was observed in 29% of the group randomized to receive 75 mg AR882 alone, 8% of those randomized to receive 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 8% of those on allopurinol alone.

At month 12, the average sUA levels were 4.3 mg/dL for 75 mg AR882, 3.7 mg/dL for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 2.9 mg/dL for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm.

At the 12-month mark, the proportions of patients with complete resolution of any tophus were 50.0% for 75 mg AR882, 12.5% for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 36.4% for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm, according to Dr. Keenan.

Compared with allopurinol alone at 6 months, 75 mg AR882 led to a reduction in total urate crystal volume, and this reduction was sustained at 12 months, he added.

Alone or in combination with allopurinol, AR882 was well tolerated. Gout flares were the most common adverse events, but they declined with continued AR882 treatment, according to Dr. Keenan. Diarrhea, headache, and upper respiratory infections were reported but were of mild or moderate severity.

Again, the take-home message from this study, like the other phase 2 study of a novel URAT1 inhibitor, is that these newer drugs might offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio, particularly in those with refractory disease.

“AR882 may offer improved efficacy and better safety compared to existing therapies in the treatment of patients with gout, including those with both clinically visible and subclinical crystal deposition,” Dr. Keenan said.

Dr. Baraf reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics, Fresenius Kabi, Grünenthal, Olatec, Selecta Biosciences, and Sobi, which provided funding for the trials he discussed. Dr. Kivitz also reported a financial relationship with Sobi, which funded the DISSOLVE trials, along with AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Flexion, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Regeneron. Dr. Ding reported no potential conflicts. The study she discussed was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keenan is an employee of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 1, 2024 — Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of infusion reactions reported in the 6-month extension phase of the DISSOLVE I trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Safe and effective options for lowering serum uric acid (sUA) in patients with gout who are refractory to conventional therapies appear to be near, judging from phase 2 and 3 trials that produced positive results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reports from the meeting included two phase 2 studies with novel urate anion transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitors for patients with refractory gout, in addition to extension data from the phase 3 trial program for SEL-212. In all cases, efficacy appeared to be on the same order of currently available drugs with potentially better tolerability, an important unmet need for patients with gout refractory to traditional therapies.
 

12-Month Outcomes With SEL-212

The extension data with SEL-212 follow the 6-month results presented from the DISSOLVE I and II trials at EULAR 2023. Now at 12 months, the benefits have proven to be generally sustained with no new safety signals, according to Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, The Center for Rheumatology and Bone Research, Wheaton, Maryland.

Arthritis Foundation

SEL-212 is a drug platform involving two components delivered by intravenous infusion once monthly in sequence. The first, SEL-110, consists of tolerogenic nanoparticles containing sirolimus. The second, SEL-037, is the pegylated uricase pegadricase.

On the 1-month dosing schedule, most patients who had responded at 6 months were still responding at 12 months, and both of the two study doses of SEL-212 in the DISSOLVE trials were well tolerated over the extension, Dr. Baraf reported.

On the basis of the data so far, “this will be an effective and well tolerated therapy for refractory gout over a period of at least 12 months,” Dr. Baraf said.

The DISSOLVE I and II trials were identically designed. Patients with refractory gout, defined as failure to normalize sUA or control symptoms with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive 0.15 mg SEL-212, 1.0 mg SEL-212, or placebo.

There was a stopping rule for patients who reached a sUA level < 2 mg/dL 1 hour after the infusion.

The primary endpoint was sUA level < 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the sixth month of the 6-month trial. About 50% of patients on either dose of SEL-212 met this endpoint (vs 4% of those receiving placebo; P < .0001). There was a numerical advantage for the higher dose in both studies.

Patients who completed the 6-month trial were eligible for a 6-month extension, during which they remained on their assigned therapy, including placebo. This phase was also blinded. Patients who met the stopping rule in either the main study or extension did not take the study drug but remained in the study for final analysis.

Of the 265 patients who participated in the main phase of the study, 143 (54%) completed the 6-month extension. Most discontinuations were the result of the stopping rule. Reasons for other patients discontinuing the study included withdrawal of consent in about 10% of each treatment arm and adverse events in 13.8%, 6.8%, and 2.2% of the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively.

At 12 months, when the data from the two trials were pooled, the proportion of patients on therapy and responding remained at about 50% in the high-dose group and 43% in the low-dose group on an intention-to-treat analysis. Relative to the 8% response rate for placebo, the advantage for either dose was highly significant (P < .0001).

In the subgroup of patients with tophi at baseline, representing about half the study group, responses were low at 12 months, whether on high- (41%) or low-dose (43%) SEL-212. The rate of response among placebo patients with baseline tophi was 9%.
 

Safety of SEL-212

The safety over the 6-month extension did not differ substantially from that observed during the first 6 months, according to Dr. Baraf. This was reiterated in more detail by Alan Kivitz, MD, Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania. He delivered a separate safety presentation focused on DISSOLVE I.

Specifically, there were no serious adverse events thought to be related to treatment. Besides gout flares, which affected approximately 27% of patients regardless of active treatment or placebo assignment, the most common adverse effect was hypertriglyceridemia, which was observed in 5.4% of patients on active treatment vs 0% of those receiving placebo. Independent of the treatment arm, less than 5% of patients developed stomatitis or cellulitis during the 6-month extension period.

In the 6-month extension phase, there were no infusion reactions observed within 1 hour after SEL-212 administration and just two overall that occurred with low-dose SEL-212, according to Kivitz.

New Selective URAT1 Inhibitors

The other potential advance in the treatment of refractory gout is coming from newer selective URAT1 inhibitors. According to the lead investigators of two phase 2 trials evaluating a novel URAT1 inhibitor, the urate transporter protein has long been considered the most promising target for gout treatment. As this protein regulates the absorption of uric acid from the renal tubule, it has a direct uric acid–lowering effect. However, the adverse events of current agents, such as probenecid, benzbromarone, and sulfinpyrazone, have created a need for drugs with a better benefit-to-risk ratio.

In one of two multicenter phase 2 studies on refractory gout, the experimental agent ruzinurad was tested as an adjunct to the xanthine oxidase inhibitor febuxostat. In the other, the objective was to evaluate whether the experimental agent AR882 or AR882 plus allopurinol is better than allopurinol alone for reducing tophi at 12 months.
 

Ruzinurad Plus Febuxostat

In the ruzinurad trial, 151 patients with symptomatic gout and elevated sUA (> 6 mg/dL) for at least 6 weeks on stable doses of febuxostat were randomized to receive 5 mg ruzinurad, 10 mg ruzinurad, or placebo. All remained on febuxostat. In the active treatment arms, the starting ruzinurad dose was 1 mg before titrating up to the assigned target.

For the primary endpoint of sUA < 6 mg/dL at 12 weeks, the rates were 56.9%, 53.1%, and 13.7% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both ruzinurad arms), reported Huihua Ding, MD, a clinician and researcher at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.

“Consistently, subgroup analyses based on baseline eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], sUA, and tophus demonstrated superior effective of ruzinurad plus febuxostat over placebo plus febuxostat,” reported Dr. Ding, who noted that previous clinical studies suggested the potential for synergism between ruzinurad and febuxostat.

The proportion of patients achieving the more rigorous target of < 0.5 mg/dL was also higher with the higher and lower doses of ruzinurad vs placebo (43.1% and 38.8% vs 9.8%, respectively).

The proportion of patients with treatment-emergent side effects did not differ between the three groups. The most common were gout flares, which were observed in 39.2%, 49.0%, and 45.1% in the high-dose, low-dose, and placebo groups, respectively. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, and none led to treatment discontinuation.

The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of ruzinurad was attributed by Dr. Ding to its high relative selectivity and potent inhibition of URAT1, an advantage that might be relevant to avoiding side effects at higher doses.

AR882 in Patients With Tophi

In the trial with AR882, 42 patients with refractory gout and at least one subcutaneous tophus were randomized to receive 75 mg AR882, 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, or allopurinol alone. All drugs were taken once daily. Doses of allopurinol of up to 300 mg were permitted.

The changes in the target tophus area and crystal volume at month 6 were compared, and patients who completed this phase were invited into a 6-month extension. In the 6-month extension, 75 mg AR882 was additionally provided to those who had been in the single-agent allopurinol arm. The other arms were unchanged.

Tophi measurements were performed with calipers at regular intervals. Change from baseline in sUA levels was also an efficacy measure, according to Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which is developing AR882.

From average baseline sUA levels of > 9 mg/dL, all three treatments reduced sUA levels by an average of at least 4.5 mg by month 3. At month 6, complete resolution of at least one target tophus was observed in 29% of the group randomized to receive 75 mg AR882 alone, 8% of those randomized to receive 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 8% of those on allopurinol alone.

At month 12, the average sUA levels were 4.3 mg/dL for 75 mg AR882, 3.7 mg/dL for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 2.9 mg/dL for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm.

At the 12-month mark, the proportions of patients with complete resolution of any tophus were 50.0% for 75 mg AR882, 12.5% for 50 mg AR882 plus allopurinol, and 36.4% for the 75 mg AR882 plus allopurinol extension-switch arm, according to Dr. Keenan.

Compared with allopurinol alone at 6 months, 75 mg AR882 led to a reduction in total urate crystal volume, and this reduction was sustained at 12 months, he added.

Alone or in combination with allopurinol, AR882 was well tolerated. Gout flares were the most common adverse events, but they declined with continued AR882 treatment, according to Dr. Keenan. Diarrhea, headache, and upper respiratory infections were reported but were of mild or moderate severity.

Again, the take-home message from this study, like the other phase 2 study of a novel URAT1 inhibitor, is that these newer drugs might offer a better benefit-to-risk ratio, particularly in those with refractory disease.

“AR882 may offer improved efficacy and better safety compared to existing therapies in the treatment of patients with gout, including those with both clinically visible and subclinical crystal deposition,” Dr. Keenan said.

Dr. Baraf reported financial relationships with Horizon Therapeutics, Fresenius Kabi, Grünenthal, Olatec, Selecta Biosciences, and Sobi, which provided funding for the trials he discussed. Dr. Kivitz also reported a financial relationship with Sobi, which funded the DISSOLVE trials, along with AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Flexion, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Regeneron. Dr. Ding reported no potential conflicts. The study she discussed was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keenan is an employee of Arthrosi Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 1, 2024 — Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of infusion reactions reported in the 6-month extension phase of the DISSOLVE I trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Quitting smoking at any age increases life expectancy, with the most significant increases observed in younger individuals. But people who quit over age 65 can extend life expectancy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the detrimental effects of smoking and the positive impacts of cessation on life expectancy in individuals aged 35-75 years.
• Age-specific death rates by smoking status were calculated using the relative risks for all-cause mortality derived from the Cancer Prevention Study II data, 2018 National Health Interview Survey smoking prevalence data, and 2018 all-cause mortality rates.
• Life tables were constructed to obtain information on the life expectancies of people who never smoked, those who currently smoked, and those who previously smoked but quit at various ages.
• Estimates of years lost due to smoking and years gained by quitting smoking were calculated for people starting at age 35 and over 10-year increments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people who never smoked, those who smoked at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years and continued smoking throughout their lives would lose 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years, respectively.
• People who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would have life expectancies that are shorter by 1.2, 2.7, 3.9, 4.2, and 3.7 years, respectively, than those of same-age individuals who never smoked.
• Individuals who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would experience an additional 8.0, 5.6, 3.4, 1.7, and 0.7 years of life expectancy compared with those who continued smoking.
• People who quit at ages 65 and 75 years would have a 23.4% and 14.2% chance of gaining at least 1 additional year of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cessation benefit is not limited to young- and middle-aged adults who smoke; this study demonstrates its applicability to seniors as well. These findings may be valuable for clinicians seeking scientific evidence to motivate their patients who smoke to quit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Thuy T.T. Le, PhD, from the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor and published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s estimates were according to data from 2018 and may not reflect current trends. The estimates also did not account for variability in smoking intensity among individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. The authors declared that they had 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Quitting smoking at any age increases life expectancy, with the most significant increases observed in younger individuals. But people who quit over age 65 can extend life expectancy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the detrimental effects of smoking and the positive impacts of cessation on life expectancy in individuals aged 35-75 years.
• Age-specific death rates by smoking status were calculated using the relative risks for all-cause mortality derived from the Cancer Prevention Study II data, 2018 National Health Interview Survey smoking prevalence data, and 2018 all-cause mortality rates.
• Life tables were constructed to obtain information on the life expectancies of people who never smoked, those who currently smoked, and those who previously smoked but quit at various ages.
• Estimates of years lost due to smoking and years gained by quitting smoking were calculated for people starting at age 35 and over 10-year increments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people who never smoked, those who smoked at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years and continued smoking throughout their lives would lose 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years, respectively.
• People who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would have life expectancies that are shorter by 1.2, 2.7, 3.9, 4.2, and 3.7 years, respectively, than those of same-age individuals who never smoked.
• Individuals who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would experience an additional 8.0, 5.6, 3.4, 1.7, and 0.7 years of life expectancy compared with those who continued smoking.
• People who quit at ages 65 and 75 years would have a 23.4% and 14.2% chance of gaining at least 1 additional year of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cessation benefit is not limited to young- and middle-aged adults who smoke; this study demonstrates its applicability to seniors as well. These findings may be valuable for clinicians seeking scientific evidence to motivate their patients who smoke to quit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Thuy T.T. Le, PhD, from the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor and published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s estimates were according to data from 2018 and may not reflect current trends. The estimates also did not account for variability in smoking intensity among individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. The authors declared that they had 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Quitting smoking at any age increases life expectancy, with the most significant increases observed in younger individuals. But people who quit over age 65 can extend life expectancy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed the detrimental effects of smoking and the positive impacts of cessation on life expectancy in individuals aged 35-75 years.
• Age-specific death rates by smoking status were calculated using the relative risks for all-cause mortality derived from the Cancer Prevention Study II data, 2018 National Health Interview Survey smoking prevalence data, and 2018 all-cause mortality rates.
• Life tables were constructed to obtain information on the life expectancies of people who never smoked, those who currently smoked, and those who previously smoked but quit at various ages.
• Estimates of years lost due to smoking and years gained by quitting smoking were calculated for people starting at age 35 and over 10-year increments.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with people who never smoked, those who smoked at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years and continued smoking throughout their lives would lose 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years, respectively.
• People who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would have life expectancies that are shorter by 1.2, 2.7, 3.9, 4.2, and 3.7 years, respectively, than those of same-age individuals who never smoked.
• Individuals who quit smoking at ages 35, 45, 55, 65, and 75 years would experience an additional 8.0, 5.6, 3.4, 1.7, and 0.7 years of life expectancy compared with those who continued smoking.
• People who quit at ages 65 and 75 years would have a 23.4% and 14.2% chance of gaining at least 1 additional year of life.

IN PRACTICE:

“This cessation benefit is not limited to young- and middle-aged adults who smoke; this study demonstrates its applicability to seniors as well. These findings may be valuable for clinicians seeking scientific evidence to motivate their patients who smoke to quit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Thuy T.T. Le, PhD, from the Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor and published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s estimates were according to data from 2018 and may not reflect current trends. The estimates also did not account for variability in smoking intensity among individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products. The authors declared that they had 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.