Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Picture a healthcare system where physicians aren’t bogged down by excessive charting but are instead fully present with their patients, offering undivided attention and personalized care. In a recent X post, Stuart Blitz, COO and co-founder of Hone Health, sparked a thought-provoking conversation. “The problem with US healthcare is physicians are burned out since they spend way too much time charting, not enough with patients,” he wrote. “If you created a health system that did zero charting, you’d attract the best physicians and all patients would go there. Who is working on this?” 

This resonates with many in the medical community, myself included, because the strain of extensive documentation detracts from patient care. Having worked in both large and small healthcare systems, I know the burden of extensive charting is a palpable challenge, often detracting from the time we can devote to our patients.

The first part of this two-part series examines the overarching benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)–based clinical documentation in modern healthcare, a field witnessing a paradigm shift thanks to advancements in AI.
 

Transformative Evolution of Clinical Documentation

The transition from manual documentation to AI-driven solutions marks a significant shift in the field, with a number of products in development including Nuance, Abridge, Ambience, ScribeAmerica, 3M, and DeepScribe. These tools use ambient clinical intelligence (ACI) to automate documentation, capturing patient conversations and translating them into structured clinical summaries. This innovation aligns with the vision of reducing charting burdens and enhancing patient-physician interactions.

How does it work? ACI refers to a sophisticated form of AI applied in healthcare settings, particularly focusing on enhancing the clinical documentation process without disrupting the natural flow of the consultation. Here’s a technical yet practical breakdown of ACI and the algorithms it typically employs:

Data capture and processing: ACI systems employ various sensors and processing units, typically integrated into clinical settings. These sensors, like microphones and cameras, gather diverse data such as audio from patient-doctor dialogues and visual cues. This information is then processed in real-time or near–real-time.

Natural language processing (NLP): A core component of ACI is advanced NLP algorithms. These algorithms analyze the captured audio data, transcribing spoken words into text. NLP goes beyond mere transcription; it involves understanding context, extracting relevant medical information (like symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment plans), and interpreting the nuances of human language.

Deep learning: Machine learning, particularly deep-learning techniques, are employed to improve the accuracy of ACI systems continually. These algorithms can learn from vast datasets of clinical interactions, enhancing their ability to transcribe and interpret future conversations accurately. As they learn, they become better at understanding different accents, complex medical terms, and variations in speech patterns.

Integration with electronic health records (EHRs): ACI systems are often designed to integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems. They can automatically populate patient records with information from patient-clinician interactions, reducing manual entry and potential errors.

Customization and personalization: Many ACI systems offer customizable templates or allow clinicians to tailor documentation workflows. This flexibility ensures that the output aligns with the specific needs and preferences of healthcare providers.

Ethical and privacy considerations: ACI systems must navigate significant ethical and privacy concerns, especially related to patient consent and data security. These systems need to comply with healthcare privacy regulations such as HIPAA. They need to securely manage sensitive patient data and restrict access to authorized personnel only.
 

Broad-Spectrum Benefits of AI in Documentation

• Reducing clinician burnout: By automating the documentation process, AI tools like DAX Copilot alleviate a significant contributor to physician burnout, enabling clinicians to focus more on patient care.
• Enhanced patient care: With AI handling documentation, clinicians can engage more with their patients, leading to improved care quality and patient satisfaction.
• Data accuracy and quality: AI-driven documentation captures detailed patient encounters accurately, ensuring high-quality and comprehensive medical records.
• Response to the growing need for efficient healthcare: AI-based documentation is a direct response to the growing call for more efficient healthcare practices, where clinicians spend less time on paperwork and more with patients.

The shift toward AI-based clinical documentation represents a critical step in addressing the inefficiencies in healthcare systems. It’s a move towards a more patient-centered approach, where clinicians can focus more on patient care by reducing the time spent on excessive charting. Hopefully, we can integrate these solutions into our clinics at a large enough scale to make such an impact.

In the next column, we will explore in-depth insights from Kenneth Harper at Nuance on the technical implementation of these tools, with DAX as an example.

I would love to read your comments on AI in clinical trials as well as other AI-related topics. Write me at [email protected] or find me on X @DrBonillaOnc.

Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr Loaiza-Bonilla serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has served as a consultant for Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Guardant; served as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Amgen, Guardant, Eisai, Ipsen, Natera, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. He holds a 5% or greater equity interest in Massive Bio.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology are not just personal lists of physical complaints or so-called “organ recitals.” In fact, PROs can both guide treatment decisions in daily practice and serve as key endpoints for clinical trials.

That’s the informed opinion of Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Arthritis Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who discussed clinical and research applications of PROs at the 2024 Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Summit presented by the Arthritis Foundation and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.

Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins Division of Rheumatology

“Integrating PROs into practice settings can enhance the clinician’s ability to understand their patients and monitor disease impact, and they are increasingly available for clinical care and are being qualified for outcome measures for clinical trials,” Dr. Bingham said.

“I posit to you that some of this ability to better characterize things like anxiety and depression levels of patients more precisely may help us to identify those patients who are less likely to respond to therapy and may require different interventions than disease-modifying therapies for their disease,” he told the audience.
 

PRO Examples

The term PRO encompasses a broad range of measures that may include health-related quality of life measures, symptoms and their affects, patient satisfaction, and the patient’s experience with care.

PROs are important for rheumatology care and research because “we now have the capacity to make what we used to think were the subjective experiences of disease more objective. We now have ways that we can put numbers and measurements to the experiences that patients have about their illness and use that information as a way to understand more about the patients who are in front of us and also how their disease changes over time,” Dr. Bingham said.

Patients are the best — or in some cases, the only — judges of many aspects of their health, and they are best suited to report on certain events and outcomes, he said.

PROs that are currently included in core outcome measures used to guide care and in clinical trials in pain scores as reported by visual analog scales; functioning, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and patient global assessment.

In international qualitative studies in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were asked what was most important to them, the usual suspects of pain, function, and fatigue were routinely cited across the studies. But patients in studies from these groups (RAPP-PI, RAID, and OMERACT) also said that other factors important to their well-being included good sleep, enjoyment of life, independence, ability to participate in valued activities, and freedom from emotional distress, Dr. Bingham noted.
 

The Promise of PROMIS

The science of clinical measurement has advanced dramatically during his career, as Dr. Bingham said.

“There have been significant changes in the science behind how you develop and validate outcomes measures. The fields of clinimetrics and psychometrics have evolved substantially. These are now grounded in what we call ‘modern measurement’ approaches, which focus on item-response theory, constructing interval scales of measurement in things that are very precise in their ability to detect change over time,” he said.

One such measurement instrument is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), developed at the National Institutes of Health using advanced measurement science.

The system, administered through either computer or paper questionnaires, is designed to improve precision of health-related quality of life assessments in multiple domains, including most domains identified by patients with RA. It uses a T-score metric standardized to the US population.

“You can use this in a disease like rheumatoid arthritis, and you can find out how patients are doing in reference to the normative United States populations,” he said.

Dr. Bingham noted that his team has “very good data” to show that PROMIS system significantly outperforms existing instruments such as the HAQ.
 

How It Works

The system uses item banks, each with multiple items. For example, there are approximately 150 items for the physical function assessment portion. All the items are scored along a continuum, “from people who are completely disabled to those who can run marathons,” Dr. Bingham said.

Each item on the scale has a question and response component, ranging from “are you able to get in and out of bed?” to “are you able to walk from one room to another?” to “are you able to run 5 miles?”

To evaluate the PROMIS scale, Dr. Bingham and colleagues looked at the distribution of PROMIS T-scores for 1029 patients with RA at their center. The scales showed that patients with RA have higher levels of pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbances, as well as worse physical function, than population norms.

Dr. Bingham and colleagues also evaluated the performance of the system in patients with active RA who were starting on or switching to a different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). As they reported in 2019, among 106 participants who completed the 12-week study, all PROMIS scores improved after DMARD initiation (P ≤ .05). In addition, except for the depression domain, changes in all assessed PROMIS measures correlated with changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

To see whether integrating PROs into routine clinics could have an effect on care, Dr. Bingham and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study, which showed that with the additional patient-reported data, clinicians changed or adjusted RA treatment in 16%-19% of visits, identified new symptoms in 27%-38%, and suggested nonpharmacologic interventions in 4%-11%.

“This is information that’s being used, and it’s going into changing medical decision making,” he said.

Summarizing his work, Dr. Bingham told the audience “I hope that I have convinced you that patients with RA prioritize domains that are impacted by their disease. PROMIS measures are really state-of-the-science methods to evaluate multiple aspects of health-related quality of life, and what I’ll note to you is that these have been translated into multiple languages internationally. There are Spanish-language versions, there are Chinese language versions, there are versions for every country in the [European Union] that have been validated and can be used.”
 

It’s a Start

In the Q & A following the presentation, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, commented that “the measurement issues and automating measurements seems like it’s a fundamental practice issue — how to manage the system and how to manage patients better, and I feel like we’re kind of scratching the surface.”

He said that artificial intelligence and PROs in clinic offer some promise for improving care but added that “we can do better than this. We can figure out better systems for measuring PROs: Having patients measure PROs, having patients tell us about their PROs so they don’t have to come in, or coming in only when they need to come in, when they’re really flaring. There are lots of innovative ways of thinking about these tools, and it feels like we’re kind of on the cusp of really taking advantage.”

Dr. Bingham’s work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Ira T. Fine Discovery Fund, Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center Discovery Fund, Camille J. Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund, and Scheer Family Foundation and Joanne and John Rogers. He disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, and Sanofi and serving as a board member of the PROMIS health organization, co-chair of the Omeract Technical Advisory Group, and member of the C-PATH RA PRO working group. Dr. Solomon had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Weight loss, glycemic control, fatty liver, and the need for insulin all showed improvement in patients with both refractory type 2 diabetes and obesity after a gut liner known as EndoBarrier (RESET, Morphic Medical, United States) was implanted for 1 year, showed data.

Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.

Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.

“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.

Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
 

Convenient, Reversible Procedure

Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.

Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.

The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.

“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.

Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
 

Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal

A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m², and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.

Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.

Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m², A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.

Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).

Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.

Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.

Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.

Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”

Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m².
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Weight loss, glycemic control, fatty liver, and the need for insulin all showed improvement in patients with both refractory type 2 diabetes and obesity after a gut liner known as EndoBarrier (RESET, Morphic Medical, United States) was implanted for 1 year, showed data.

Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.

Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.

“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.

Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
 

Convenient, Reversible Procedure

Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.

Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.

The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.

“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.

Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
 

Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal

A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m², and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.

Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.

Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m², A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.

Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).

Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.

Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.

Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.

Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”

Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m².
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — Weight loss, glycemic control, fatty liver, and the need for insulin all showed improvement in patients with both refractory type 2 diabetes and obesity after a gut liner known as EndoBarrier (RESET, Morphic Medical, United States) was implanted for 1 year, showed data.

Two years after the liner’s removal, 80% of patients continued to show significant improvement, while 20% returned to baseline.

Presenting results at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference (DUKPC) 2024, the researchers, led by Bob Ryder, MD, FRCP, from the Department of Diabetes, Birmingham City Hospital, Birmingham, England, aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of EndoBarrier, as well as maintenance of efficacy 24 months after the device removal.

“We think EndoBarrier finds its place between the end of all the earlier measures and the possible option of bariatric surgery, and these data show that it can lead to tremendous weight loss and improvement in A1c,” Dr. Ryder said in an interview.

Commenting on how most patients had responded to use of the device, Dr. Ryder said, “People with obesity are often very unhappy and have tried everything over many years to no effect; however, this gut liner provided the opportunity to shift out of this state, and they often become so happy with the result they were determined to stick with it and continue with a healthier lifestyle including much more exercise.”
 

Convenient, Reversible Procedure

Ninety consecutive patients from Birmingham, all with longstanding, poorly controlled, type 2 diabetes and obesity, underwent the implantation procedure, and 60 of these attended follow-up visits 2 years post implantation.

Unlike permanent and more invasive weight loss surgeries, the EndoBarrier device is reversible and fitted with a straightforward procedure.

The thin impermeable sleeve is inserted via an approximate 1-hour endoscopy, enabling the patient to return home the same day. It lines the first 60 cm of the small intestine. Digested food passes through it without absorption and then makes contact with pancreatic and bile juices at the other end. This triggers a change in the metabolism of glucose and nutrients through modulating gut hormones and gut bacteria, as well as disrupting bile flow.

“Because the food bypasses the small intestine, the first time the food is encountered is in an area where it is not normally found, and this causes a reaction where signals are sent to the brain to stop eating,” explained Dr. Ryder.

Due to a license for 1 year of use, the gut liner was removed after a year via a 30-minute endoscopy procedure.
 

Over Half Maintained Full Improvement 2 Years Post Removal

A total of 60/90 (66%) attended follow-up visits and comprised the data presented. Mean age was 51.2 years, 47% were men, 50% were White, mean body mass index (BMI) was 41.5 kg/m², and mean A1c was 9.3%. Duration of type 2 diabetes was a median of 11 years, and 60% were taking insulin.

Patients followed dietary requirements for the initial phase after implantation. “During the first week, they followed a liquid diet, then during week 2 — mushy food, and then they were told to chew it really well to avoid blockage,” said Dr. Ryder.

Mean weight loss on removal of the liner (at 12 months post implantation) was 16.7 kg (P < .001), while BMI dropped by mean 6 kg/m², A1c dropped by a mean of 1.8%, and mean systolic blood pressure by 10.9 mm Hg.

Just over half (32/60, 53%) showed maintenance of fully sustained improvement 2 years after removal of the liner — defined as no significant difference after 2 years between weight loss (mean, 96-97 kg) and similarly for A1c improvement (7.6%-7.4%).

Sixteen of 60 (27%) showed partially sustained improvement over the 2 years of follow-up, with BMI increasing from a mean of 116.8 kg to 128.6 kg and A1c increasing from 7.5% to 8.4%. While 20% (12/60) returned to baseline.

Of the 36/60 people using insulin prior to EndoBarrier treatment, 10 (27.8%) were no longer using insulin at 2 years post removal.

Thirteen of 90 (14%) had early removal of the gut liner due to gastrointestinal hemorrhage (five), liver abscess (two), other abscess (one), and gastrointestinal symptoms (five), but they all made a full recovery; after removal, most experienced benefit despite the adverse event, reported Dr. Ryder.

Sarah Davies, MBBCh, a GP at Woodlands Medical Centre, Cardiff, Wales, agreed that EndoBarrier might be a viable option for patients struggling with obesity. “As GPs, we are the first port of call for these patients. It’s very novel, I hadn’t heard of it before. I like how it’s a noninvasive way for my patients to lose weight and maintain that even after EndoBarrier has been removed.”

Outcomes are being monitored in an ongoing global registry to help determine if EndoBarrier is a safe and effective treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Dr. Ryder noted that a similar study with 3 years of follow-up showed similar results. Further results will be presented by Dr. Ryder at the upcoming meeting of the American Diabetes Association.

EndoBarrier is currently not approved in the United States. It is awaiting United Kingdom and European CE mark, which the manufacturer hope will be granted this summer. The license will be for patients with BMI of 35-50 kg/m².
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

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: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

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: 

A study comparing the clinical reasoning of an artificial intelligence (AI) model with that of physicians found the AI outperformed residents and attending physicians in simulated cases. The AI had more instances of incorrect reasoning than the doctors did but scored better overall.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study involved 39 physicians from two academic medical centers in Boston and the generative AI model GPT-4.
• Participants were presented with 20 simulated clinical cases involving common problems such as pharyngitis, headache, abdominal pain, cough, and chest pain. Each case included sections describing the triage presentation, review of systems, physical examination, and diagnostic testing.
• The primary outcome was the Revised-IDEA (R-IDEA) score, a 10-point scale evaluating clinical reasoning documentation across four domains: Interpretive summary, differential diagnosis, explanation of the lead diagnosis, and alternative diagnoses.

TAKEAWAY: 

• AI achieved a median R-IDEA score of 10, higher than attending physicians (median score, 9) and residents (8).
• The chatbot had a significantly higher estimated probability of achieving a high R-IDEA score of 8-10 (0.99) compared with attendings (0.76) and residents (0.56).
• AI provided more responses that contained instances of incorrect clinical reasoning (13.8%) than residents (2.8%) and attending physicians (12.5%). It performed similarly to physicians in diagnostic accuracy and inclusion of cannot-miss diagnoses.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should assess clinical reasoning of the LLM-physician interaction, as LLMs will more likely augment, not replace, the human reasoning process,” the authors of the study wrote. 

SOURCE:

Adam Rodman, MD, MPH, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Simulated clinical cases may not replicate performance in real-world scenarios. Further training could enhance the performance of the AI, so the study may underestimate its capabilities, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center and Harvard University. Authors disclosed financial ties to publishing companies and Solera Health. Dr. Rodman received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

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.

A head-to-head trial of minimally invasive procedures to manage benign prostatic hyperplasia found that urethral implants appear to provide more durable control of symptoms than thermal therapy. 

The ongoing CLEAR RCT study includes 68 men in the United States and the United Kingdom who have undergone one of two minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs). It found a procedure in which prostate tissue is lifted away from the urethra to improve urinary flow provided faster relief of symptoms, lower rates of catheterization, and higher patient satisfaction at 1 month than did an alternative approach that relies on thermal energy for tissue ablation, according to Mark Rochester, MD, a consultant urologist at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals in England. 

“These results give clinicians and patients some data with which to choose between devices,” said Dr. Rochester, who presented the data at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.
 

CLEAR RCT Called First MIST Controlled Trial

Dr. Rochester called CLEAR RCT “the first head-to-head randomized controlled trial to compare two contemporary MISTs”: UroLift (Teleflex), known generically as a prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and Rezum (Boston Scientific), known as water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT). 

In the PUL technique, a delivery device is introduced into the urethra and advanced to the site of hyperplasia where implants are placed to lift and hold the tissue away on each side of the urethra. The implants are designed for long-term relief of the obstruction that inhibits urinary flow.

In the WVTT technique, thermal energy in the form of water vapor is introduced into the enlarged prostate tissue where it disperses through the interstices to produce denaturization of the tissue and cell death. Over time, the ablated tissue, which is eventually reabsorbed in the healing process, relieves pressure on the urethra to improve passage of urine. 

Both procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis without general anesthesia. Each typically permits discontinuation of medications commonly prescribed for lower urinary tract symptoms, and both are associated with a low risk of erectile dysfunction. Most routine activities can be resumed within a few days.

Baseline characteristics of the 35 patients randomized to PUL and 33 patients randomized to WVTT were similar in regard to body mass index, prostate volume, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void volume test, and maximum urinary flow. 

Although this is a preliminary 3-month analysis of a study not yet completed, the primary endpoint was catheter independence on postop day 3 through 7. No patients randomized to PUL failed the primary endpoint versus nine (26%) of the patients randomized to WVTT. 

Of the nine, six failed because they were not catheter-independent by day 3; three more failed after they had initially achieved catheter independence but then required the device in order to void within 7 days, Dr. Rochester reported. Four of these patients had further recurrences within 3 months of the procedure. 

The response measured by symptoms and objective studies of such variables as peak flow (Qmax) also favored PUL over WVTT in the early postperative period, according to the analysis. By 14 days, for example, IPSS scores were superior at 14 days and 1 month, although they no longer differed statistically at the 3-month mark. Qmax was significantly greater in the PUL group at 14 days but not at 1 or 3 months, according to Dr. Rochester. 
 

QOL Advantage at 1 Month Lost at 3 Months

From baseline, more patients in the PUL than WVTT group had a meaningful improvement in quality of life (QoL) at 14 days (39.5% vs 5.6%) and 1 month (47.8% vs 19.2%), Dr. Rochester said. Again, however, the between-group differences had lost significance by 3 months.

Patients who were satisfied or very satisfied at 1 month (48% vs 25%) also favored PUL, and about the same proportion (55%) were satisfied at 3 months, Dr. Rochester said.

Adverse events attributed to these procedures were slightly higher in the PUL group (21%) than the WVTT group (17%), but none was serious. At longest follow-up to date, which is 1 year in some patients, one man in each group required an invasive retreatment.

Patients or clinicians might prefer one technique over the other in an individual case, but the goal of CLEAR RCT was to provide objective evidence when educating patients about treatment options.

“Patients typically want to know which one is preferred, and we needed data to back up this conversation,” Dr. Rochester said. 
 

Measuring the Right Endpoint?

While longer follow-up might reveal differences in the durability of symptom relief, outcomes other than the primary endpoint of CLEAR RCT should be considered when selecting between these modalities, according to Dean Elterman, MD, MSc, an associate professor in urology at the University of Toronto in Canada. He suggested that catheter-free rates on days 3-7 is “a unique primary endpoint.” 

“Patients choose different therapies for different personal reasons. For some, having a catheter for less time is an important short-term goal, while for others the long-term benefit may carry more weight,” said Dr. Elterman, who led a study in 2021 that pooled data from two sham-controlled trials to consider differences between PUL and WVTT at 3 years. In that study, WVTT was associated with fewer surgical retreatments (4.4% vs 10.7%) and better symptom relief at long-term follow-up.

Given the differences in the mechanisms of PUL and WVTT, he said it is probably inappropriate to consider just one endpoint, such as early catheter independence, in considering the differences between the two MISTs. 

“This study does show PUL patients have less interference with participation in daily activities within the first month, but the clinical improvement and quality of life are the same in each group at 3 months,” he noted.

“If short-term benefits are weighed as more important to a patient, then this study may be informative,” he said. But he thinks many patients will be at least as interested in long-term follow-up to see if early benefits are durable.

Dr. Rochester reported financial relationships with Intuitive Surgical and Teleflex, which manufactures UroLift and was the sponsor of the CLEAR RCT trial. Dr. Elterman reported financial relationships with BioRobotics and Olympus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A head-to-head trial of minimally invasive procedures to manage benign prostatic hyperplasia found that urethral implants appear to provide more durable control of symptoms than thermal therapy. 

The ongoing CLEAR RCT study includes 68 men in the United States and the United Kingdom who have undergone one of two minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs). It found a procedure in which prostate tissue is lifted away from the urethra to improve urinary flow provided faster relief of symptoms, lower rates of catheterization, and higher patient satisfaction at 1 month than did an alternative approach that relies on thermal energy for tissue ablation, according to Mark Rochester, MD, a consultant urologist at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals in England. 

“These results give clinicians and patients some data with which to choose between devices,” said Dr. Rochester, who presented the data at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.
 

CLEAR RCT Called First MIST Controlled Trial

Dr. Rochester called CLEAR RCT “the first head-to-head randomized controlled trial to compare two contemporary MISTs”: UroLift (Teleflex), known generically as a prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and Rezum (Boston Scientific), known as water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT). 

In the PUL technique, a delivery device is introduced into the urethra and advanced to the site of hyperplasia where implants are placed to lift and hold the tissue away on each side of the urethra. The implants are designed for long-term relief of the obstruction that inhibits urinary flow.

In the WVTT technique, thermal energy in the form of water vapor is introduced into the enlarged prostate tissue where it disperses through the interstices to produce denaturization of the tissue and cell death. Over time, the ablated tissue, which is eventually reabsorbed in the healing process, relieves pressure on the urethra to improve passage of urine. 

Both procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis without general anesthesia. Each typically permits discontinuation of medications commonly prescribed for lower urinary tract symptoms, and both are associated with a low risk of erectile dysfunction. Most routine activities can be resumed within a few days.

Baseline characteristics of the 35 patients randomized to PUL and 33 patients randomized to WVTT were similar in regard to body mass index, prostate volume, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void volume test, and maximum urinary flow. 

Although this is a preliminary 3-month analysis of a study not yet completed, the primary endpoint was catheter independence on postop day 3 through 7. No patients randomized to PUL failed the primary endpoint versus nine (26%) of the patients randomized to WVTT. 

Of the nine, six failed because they were not catheter-independent by day 3; three more failed after they had initially achieved catheter independence but then required the device in order to void within 7 days, Dr. Rochester reported. Four of these patients had further recurrences within 3 months of the procedure. 

The response measured by symptoms and objective studies of such variables as peak flow (Qmax) also favored PUL over WVTT in the early postperative period, according to the analysis. By 14 days, for example, IPSS scores were superior at 14 days and 1 month, although they no longer differed statistically at the 3-month mark. Qmax was significantly greater in the PUL group at 14 days but not at 1 or 3 months, according to Dr. Rochester. 
 

QOL Advantage at 1 Month Lost at 3 Months

From baseline, more patients in the PUL than WVTT group had a meaningful improvement in quality of life (QoL) at 14 days (39.5% vs 5.6%) and 1 month (47.8% vs 19.2%), Dr. Rochester said. Again, however, the between-group differences had lost significance by 3 months.

Patients who were satisfied or very satisfied at 1 month (48% vs 25%) also favored PUL, and about the same proportion (55%) were satisfied at 3 months, Dr. Rochester said.

Adverse events attributed to these procedures were slightly higher in the PUL group (21%) than the WVTT group (17%), but none was serious. At longest follow-up to date, which is 1 year in some patients, one man in each group required an invasive retreatment.

Patients or clinicians might prefer one technique over the other in an individual case, but the goal of CLEAR RCT was to provide objective evidence when educating patients about treatment options.

“Patients typically want to know which one is preferred, and we needed data to back up this conversation,” Dr. Rochester said. 
 

Measuring the Right Endpoint?

While longer follow-up might reveal differences in the durability of symptom relief, outcomes other than the primary endpoint of CLEAR RCT should be considered when selecting between these modalities, according to Dean Elterman, MD, MSc, an associate professor in urology at the University of Toronto in Canada. He suggested that catheter-free rates on days 3-7 is “a unique primary endpoint.” 

“Patients choose different therapies for different personal reasons. For some, having a catheter for less time is an important short-term goal, while for others the long-term benefit may carry more weight,” said Dr. Elterman, who led a study in 2021 that pooled data from two sham-controlled trials to consider differences between PUL and WVTT at 3 years. In that study, WVTT was associated with fewer surgical retreatments (4.4% vs 10.7%) and better symptom relief at long-term follow-up.

Given the differences in the mechanisms of PUL and WVTT, he said it is probably inappropriate to consider just one endpoint, such as early catheter independence, in considering the differences between the two MISTs. 

“This study does show PUL patients have less interference with participation in daily activities within the first month, but the clinical improvement and quality of life are the same in each group at 3 months,” he noted.

“If short-term benefits are weighed as more important to a patient, then this study may be informative,” he said. But he thinks many patients will be at least as interested in long-term follow-up to see if early benefits are durable.

Dr. Rochester reported financial relationships with Intuitive Surgical and Teleflex, which manufactures UroLift and was the sponsor of the CLEAR RCT trial. Dr. Elterman reported financial relationships with BioRobotics and Olympus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A head-to-head trial of minimally invasive procedures to manage benign prostatic hyperplasia found that urethral implants appear to provide more durable control of symptoms than thermal therapy. 

The ongoing CLEAR RCT study includes 68 men in the United States and the United Kingdom who have undergone one of two minimally invasive surgical techniques (MISTs). It found a procedure in which prostate tissue is lifted away from the urethra to improve urinary flow provided faster relief of symptoms, lower rates of catheterization, and higher patient satisfaction at 1 month than did an alternative approach that relies on thermal energy for tissue ablation, according to Mark Rochester, MD, a consultant urologist at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals in England. 

“These results give clinicians and patients some data with which to choose between devices,” said Dr. Rochester, who presented the data at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association of Urology.
 

CLEAR RCT Called First MIST Controlled Trial

Dr. Rochester called CLEAR RCT “the first head-to-head randomized controlled trial to compare two contemporary MISTs”: UroLift (Teleflex), known generically as a prostatic urethral lift (PUL), and Rezum (Boston Scientific), known as water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT). 

In the PUL technique, a delivery device is introduced into the urethra and advanced to the site of hyperplasia where implants are placed to lift and hold the tissue away on each side of the urethra. The implants are designed for long-term relief of the obstruction that inhibits urinary flow.

In the WVTT technique, thermal energy in the form of water vapor is introduced into the enlarged prostate tissue where it disperses through the interstices to produce denaturization of the tissue and cell death. Over time, the ablated tissue, which is eventually reabsorbed in the healing process, relieves pressure on the urethra to improve passage of urine. 

Both procedures can be performed on an outpatient basis without general anesthesia. Each typically permits discontinuation of medications commonly prescribed for lower urinary tract symptoms, and both are associated with a low risk of erectile dysfunction. Most routine activities can be resumed within a few days.

Baseline characteristics of the 35 patients randomized to PUL and 33 patients randomized to WVTT were similar in regard to body mass index, prostate volume, baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void volume test, and maximum urinary flow. 

Although this is a preliminary 3-month analysis of a study not yet completed, the primary endpoint was catheter independence on postop day 3 through 7. No patients randomized to PUL failed the primary endpoint versus nine (26%) of the patients randomized to WVTT. 

Of the nine, six failed because they were not catheter-independent by day 3; three more failed after they had initially achieved catheter independence but then required the device in order to void within 7 days, Dr. Rochester reported. Four of these patients had further recurrences within 3 months of the procedure. 

The response measured by symptoms and objective studies of such variables as peak flow (Qmax) also favored PUL over WVTT in the early postperative period, according to the analysis. By 14 days, for example, IPSS scores were superior at 14 days and 1 month, although they no longer differed statistically at the 3-month mark. Qmax was significantly greater in the PUL group at 14 days but not at 1 or 3 months, according to Dr. Rochester. 
 

QOL Advantage at 1 Month Lost at 3 Months

From baseline, more patients in the PUL than WVTT group had a meaningful improvement in quality of life (QoL) at 14 days (39.5% vs 5.6%) and 1 month (47.8% vs 19.2%), Dr. Rochester said. Again, however, the between-group differences had lost significance by 3 months.

Patients who were satisfied or very satisfied at 1 month (48% vs 25%) also favored PUL, and about the same proportion (55%) were satisfied at 3 months, Dr. Rochester said.

Adverse events attributed to these procedures were slightly higher in the PUL group (21%) than the WVTT group (17%), but none was serious. At longest follow-up to date, which is 1 year in some patients, one man in each group required an invasive retreatment.

Patients or clinicians might prefer one technique over the other in an individual case, but the goal of CLEAR RCT was to provide objective evidence when educating patients about treatment options.

“Patients typically want to know which one is preferred, and we needed data to back up this conversation,” Dr. Rochester said. 
 

Measuring the Right Endpoint?

While longer follow-up might reveal differences in the durability of symptom relief, outcomes other than the primary endpoint of CLEAR RCT should be considered when selecting between these modalities, according to Dean Elterman, MD, MSc, an associate professor in urology at the University of Toronto in Canada. He suggested that catheter-free rates on days 3-7 is “a unique primary endpoint.” 

“Patients choose different therapies for different personal reasons. For some, having a catheter for less time is an important short-term goal, while for others the long-term benefit may carry more weight,” said Dr. Elterman, who led a study in 2021 that pooled data from two sham-controlled trials to consider differences between PUL and WVTT at 3 years. In that study, WVTT was associated with fewer surgical retreatments (4.4% vs 10.7%) and better symptom relief at long-term follow-up.

Given the differences in the mechanisms of PUL and WVTT, he said it is probably inappropriate to consider just one endpoint, such as early catheter independence, in considering the differences between the two MISTs. 

“This study does show PUL patients have less interference with participation in daily activities within the first month, but the clinical improvement and quality of life are the same in each group at 3 months,” he noted.

“If short-term benefits are weighed as more important to a patient, then this study may be informative,” he said. But he thinks many patients will be at least as interested in long-term follow-up to see if early benefits are durable.

Dr. Rochester reported financial relationships with Intuitive Surgical and Teleflex, which manufactures UroLift and was the sponsor of the CLEAR RCT trial. Dr. Elterman reported financial relationships with BioRobotics and Olympus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lerodalcibep, a novel, third-generation proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by more than 50% after 1 year in patients with or at a high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new phase 3 results showed.

Newer, more stringent LDL targets in 90% of patients receiving lerodalcibep vs only 16% of those on placebo, despite concurrent treatment with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe.

“This hopefully gives doctors a more practical PCSK9 antagonist that’s small volume, can be administered monthly, and is an alternative to the every 2 week injection of monoclonal antibodies and probably more effective in LDL cholesterol–lowering compared to the small interfering RNA” medicines, study author Eric Klug, MBBCh, MMed, associate professor, Division of Cardiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, told this news organization.

The findings from the LIBerate-HR trial were presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024.
 

Additional Therapy Needed

The first goal is to get at least a 50% reduction in LDL-C, said Dr. Klug. The ACC, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology recommended LDL-C of no more than 55 mg/dL as a goal for patients with CVD or who are at a very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke and no more than 70 mg/dL for high-risk patients.

Most patients don’t get to that combined goal with statins and ezetimibe and need additional therapy, “and it appears the earlier you give the therapy the better,” said Dr. Klug.

Lerodalcibep is given as a low-dose (1.2-mL) monthly injection and is more convenient than other LDL-C–lowering options, said Dr. Klug. “This is a small-volume molecule that can be delivered subcutaneously once a month and can be kept on the shelf so it doesn’t need to be kept in the fridge, and you can travel with it.”

LIBerate-HR included 922 patients with CVD or at a high or very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke at 66 centers in 11 countries. Over half (52%) fell into the at-risk category.

The mean age of participants was 64.5 years, 77% were White, and, notably, about 45% were women. Some 84% were taking a statin, 16.6% ezetimibe, a quarter had diabetes, and 10% had the more severe inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Patients were randomly assigned to receive monthly 300-mg (1.2-mL) subcutaneous injections of lerodalcibep (n = 615) or placebo (n = 307) for 52 weeks.

The mean LDL-C at baseline was 116.9 mg/dL in the placebo group and 116.3 mg/dL in the treatment group.

The co-primary efficacy endpoints were the percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 52 and the mean of weeks 50 and 52 (average of the peak and trough dose).

Compared with placebo, lerodalcibep reduced LDL-C by 56.19% at week 52 (P < .0001) and by 62.69% at mean week 50/52 (P < .0001). The absolute decreases were 60.6 mg/dL at week 52 and 74.5 mg/dL for mean week 50/52.
 

Rule of Thumb

“There’s a sort of rule of thumb that for every 40 mg/dL that LDL-C is reduced, you reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20%-23%,” said Dr. Klug. “So, by reducing LDL-C by 60 mg/dL at week 52, you’re reducing your risk of MACE maybe by 30% or 35%.”

All subgroups reaped the same benefit from the intervention, noted Dr. Klug. “Whether you were male or female, under age 65, over age 65, baseline BMI less than median or more than median, White, Black or other, baseline statin intensity, diabetic or not diabetic, diagnosis of FH or not, it made no difference.”

As for secondary outcomes, most patients attained the newer, more stringent guideline-recommended LDL targets. About 94% of all patients achieved a 50% or greater reduction in LDL-C compared to 19% on placebo. These percentages were 90% vs 12% for those at a high risk for CVD and 96% vs 21% for those with CVD or very high risk for CVD.

The treatment also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 47%, apolipoprotein B by 43%, and Lp(a) by 33%.

Lerodalcibep was well-tolerated, with the number of patients with at least one adverse event similar to placebo (71.6% vs 68.1%) as was the case for the number with at least one serious adverse event (12.4% vs 13.4%).

Injection site reactions were mild to moderate. There was no difference in discontinuation rates due to these reactions (4.2% for the treatment and 4.6% for placebo).

A larger and longer trial to begin later this year should determine if the amount of LDL-C–lowering seen with lerodalcibep translates to greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

The company plans to file an application for approval to the US Food and Drug Administration in the next 2-4 months, said Dr. Klug.
 

Still Work to Do

During a press briefing, Dave L, Dixon, PharmD, professor and chair, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, and member of the ACC Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, congratulated the investigators “on moving this product forward and demonstrating the LDL-lowering efficacy, as well as providing some additional safety and tolerability data.”

He added it’s “clear” from the baseline LDL characteristics that “we have a lot of work to do in terms of helping patients achieve their lipid goals.”

Dr. Dixon noted up to about 30% of patients have some form of statin intolerance. “So, we really have to utilize our non-statin therapies, and unfortunately, we’re not doing a great job of that.”

That the trial enrolled so many women is “fantastic,” said Dr. Dixon, adding the investigators also “did a great job” of enrolling underrepresented minorities.

Having a once-a-month self-injection option “is great” and “fills a nice niche” for patients, said Dr. Dixon.

The study was funded by LIB Therapeutics, which manufactures lerodalcibep. Dr. Klug had no conflicts relevant to this study (he received honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, and Sanofi-Aventis).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — Patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) are often prescribed low-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but a new retrospective analysis suggests that, like adults, this patient population may benefit from early treatment with high-efficacy DMTs.

“I think it’s very important to highlight that we are seeing that traditionally, kids are just started on lower-efficacy treatments and they keep relapsing. If we can show that when they get transitioned to high-efficacy treatments, the relapses are lessening, I’m hoping that can then push for better clinical trials with pediatric patients included,” said Frederick Bassal, DO, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. He is a pediatric neurologist at University of California, Davis.

The first line for POMS is generally low-efficacy DMTs like interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate, but these medications may not effectively control disease progression, according to the study authors, and this could lead to pediatric patients being changed to more potent therapies. That can include moderate-efficacy drugs like S1P inhibitors and fumarates, or high-efficacy DMTS such as B cell depletors and alpha 4 integrin receptor antibodies.
 

Treatment Strategies

“Right now what we’re seeing is the conservative approach — starting low and working up with the younger and adolescent patients. I’m speculating, and I want to look more into it. Is [it maybe] because of insurance approval?” said study coauthor Amara Miller, a medical student at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix.

The findings aren’t surprising, according to Barbara Giesser, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. “It is in line with what we think we know about people with adult MS — that if you start early on with a more effective therapy, you tend to have better outcomes,” said Dr. Giesser, director of the MS program at the Pacific Neuroscience Institute.

Another reason to consider higher-efficacy DMTs is that children with MS can have cognitive problems and delays. “There’s a suggestion that if you treat with highly-effective DMT that you might be able to abrogate some of that,” said Dr. Giesser.

Among the approximately two dozen FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for MS, only fingolimod (Gilenya, Novartis) is approved for children and adolescents. “All of the others are used off label, but I think perhaps, if you have more studies that [show] that children do better if you treat with more effective therapies early on, perhaps we might see more on-label indications for use in a pediatric population,” said Dr. Giesser.

The finding that obesity was associated with a higher likelihood of having multiple therapies is also interesting, she said. “We’re beginning to see that obesity in adults as well seems to portend less favorable neurologic outcomes.”
 

Study Methodology

The researchers analyzed data from 135 POMS patients between 2012 and 2023.

The mean age of participants was 15 years, 60% were female, and 120 of 135 were White, while 76 were of Hispanic ethnicity. Overweight and obesity were common, with 36 and 43 participants in each category. The initial therapy was a low-efficacy DMT in 23.0% of participants, moderate-efficacy in 37.0%, and high-efficacy in 24.4%, while 1.5% received some other kind of medication and 14.1% received no medication. The annualized relapse rate was 0.932, and the mean EDSS score was 0.88.

Patients who underwent three or medication changes had lower EDSS scores than those who underwent zero to 2 (P = .00607).

Over the course of the study, the percentage of patients who received high-efficacy DMTs rose from 25.9% to 48.9%, largely due to changes in medication. Of those initially prescribed low-efficacy DMTs, 77.4% were eventually switched to high-efficacy DMTs.

Every patient who underwent three or more medication changes was initially prescribed a low-efficacy DMT.

Patients started on low-efficacy drugs had a mean of 1.42 medication changes, compared with 0.94 in the moderate-efficacy group and 0.51 in the high-efficacy group. The reasons for changing from the first medication included relapse (36), side effects (11), patient choice or compliance (8), and pregnancy (2).

Patients 10 years or younger were more likely to be initially prescribed a low-efficacy therapy (odds ratio [OR], 5.72; P = .0366), while older patients were more likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-efficacy therapies (OR, 14.44; P = .0012).

There were more total medication changes in the low-efficacy group than the high initial DMT group (P = .000305).

Asked what advice they would give to physicians treating POMS patients, Ms. Miller suggested a top-down approach. “We want to look at if maybe we can start with higher efficacy DMT’s and maybe titering it down. That may be an option,” said Ms. Miller.

Dr. Bassal highlighted the importance of shared decision-making. “We want to go over the options, that we recommend higher-efficacy [DMTs] for these reasons. But every individual is different. And there may be fears that are very reasonable that families have. I think in those cases, it’s also reasonable to make a shared decision. And if that means going with something like an oral, moderate- to lower-efficacy [therapy], that’s okay, because compliance is key, and if you start something where the family is afraid of side effects, or there are side effects, then you kind of lost that opportunity,” he said.

Dr. Bassal, Dr. Giesser, and Ms. Miller have no relevant financial disclosures.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

PARIS — Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common brain-gut axis disorder, and patients are often dissatisfied with conventional treatments.

The role of the microbiota in IBS is now well established, and patients frequently take probiotics on their own initiative or on the advice of a physician or pharmacist. However, not all probiotics have equal efficacy, so which ones should be recommended?

Jean-Marc Sabaté, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France, shared insights about probiotics at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology.

IBS, according to the Rome IV symptom-based classification, is a “disorder of brain-gut axis interactions” with a prevalence of about 4% in the adult population. In France, during an average care pathway of about 8 years, patients try an average of five therapeutic strategies (and as many as 11), including antispasmodics (85%), diets (78%), and probiotics. In addition, 66.4% of patients had either taken or were taking probiotics at the time of a recent survey.

While the 2022 recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology on the diagnosis and management of IBS do not support the use of probiotics for overall symptom relief — a recommendation for which they cite a low level of evidence — “there is nevertheless a rationale for prescribing probiotics in IBS due to the significant role of the microbiota (or dysbiosis) in this condition,” said Dr. Sabaté.
 

Microbiota in IBS 

Evidence indicating that antibiotics exacerbate IBS symptoms and revealing chronic bacterial overgrowth in the small intestine of patients with IBS supports the role of the microbiota. Studies using a molecular approach (16s rRNA) have settled the debate, confirming differences in the intestinal flora between patients with IBS and healthy subjects. Data also indicate differences in flora between patient subtypes, such as an increased Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio. However, one subgroup, which can represent as much as a third of patients, seems to harbor a “normal” microbiota. 

Nonetheless, the microbiota plays a significant role in IBS. A Swedish study highlighted the influence of bacterial enterotypes on transit type associated with IBS and symptom severity, independent of diet composition or medication use. 

This dysbiosis could play a significant role as it interacts with other mechanisms involved in IBS, including changes in intestinal motility related to diet (related to fermentable carbohydrates, for example). Moreover, the microbiota seems to induce a low level of immune activation in patients with IBS, leading to microinflammation and increased intestinal permeability, especially after an infection.

Furthermore, alterations in the regulation of bile acid deconjugation by the microbiota partly explain the frequency and consistency of stools in diarrhea-predominant IBS patients.

In addition, colonic gas production is higher in these patients. Those complaining of flatulence have poor tolerance to intestinal gases after a flatulent meal, associated with microbiota instability.

Data regarding the interaction between the microbiota and central mechanisms mainly come from animal studies. In rodents, microbiota constituents seem to affect brain development, function, and morphology. Emotional and physical traumas during childhood appear to be risk factors. Moreover, even brief exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics in neonates could cause subsequent visceral hypersensitivity.

Lastly, the role of the microbiota in changes in medullary pain control after visceral stimulation (eg, rectal distension) has still not been demonstrated in humans.
 

Recent Guideline 

In its February 2023 Global Guideline “Probiotics and Prebiotics” for IBS, the World Gastroenterology Organization looked at the level of evidence for probiotics.

Three strains, as well as a combination of several strains, were supported by level 2 evidence, meaning at least two randomized studies with converging results. These are Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75, which improves overall symptoms and quality of life; Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), which acts on the severity of abdominal pain and bloating; and B infantis 35624 (new name: B longum 35624), which improves the overall assessment of IBS symptoms, as does the multistrain product containing L rhamnosus GG, L rhamnosus LC705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp shermanii JS DSM 7067, and B animalis ssp lactis B012 DSM 15954.
 

Efficacy and Availability 

Probiotics belonging to the category of dietary supplements or medical devices are not required to provide evidence for a mechanism of action or even efficacy to be marketed. Thus, for most probiotics sold, there are no human or even animal studies available.

Dr. Sabaté proposed a choice of probiotics based on the literature and the presence of at least one randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in patients with IBS showing positive results.

“Probiotic efficacy largely depends on the bacterial species, strain, and clinical situation treated. Only probiotics with demonstrated clinical efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials should be recommended,” he emphasized. The parameters that can be improved include symptom severity, quality of life, abdominal pain, and bloating.
 

Effective Probiotics 

B longum 35624, which was developed with researchers from University College Cork in Ireland, is probably the most studied in animals and humans. Research has encompassed the mechanistic, clinical, and safety aspects of the probiotic. It has shown good results on the IBS-Symptom Severity Score (SSS), quality of life, abdominal pain, bowel disturbances, and bloating. The treatment duration in studies is 4-8 weeks.

L plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) affects the frequency of abdominal pain and pain score. The treatment duration in studies is 4 weeks.

The multistrain product that includes L plantarum CECT 7484/L plantarum CECT 7485/ Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483 allows for an improvement in quality of life and anxiety related to digestive symptoms. No positive effect has been described on digestive symptoms, especially diarrhea. The treatment duration is 6 weeks.

B bifidum MIMBb75 (both normal and heat-inactivated forms) is beneficial for pain, the composite IBS-SSS score, and quality of life. The treatment duration is 4-8 weeks.

“Except for the multistrain combination, which is more suited to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, the other three probiotics can be prescribed regardless of the IBS subtype,” said Dr. Sabaté. “Treatment durations are typically 4 weeks, but it is possible to continue up to 8 weeks, which is the maximum duration of these studies. In practice, there are no tolerance issues with probiotics prescribed for IBS based on the literature. These should be tested under the conditions and for the duration of the published studies and should only be continued if there is individual benefit on symptoms or quality of life.”

Note that microbiota analyses conducted for individual purposes are of no help in choosing probiotics.
 

Mechanisms of Action 

In a murine model, but not in humans, some strains, especially L acidophilus NCFM, have shown an antinociceptive effect by inducing opioid and cannabinoid receptors.

Only in animals to date, L farciminis and B lactis CNCM I-2494 have shown prevention of induced hypersensitivity (ie, inhibition of the cytoskeleton contraction of colon epithelial cells and subsequent opening of tight junctions).

B infantis 35624 has an anti-inflammatory action by modifying the IL-10 and IL-12 cytokine ratio in animals and humans. It has an immunomodulatory action by increasing dendritic cells in the mucosa and decreasing Th1 and Th7 helper T cells.

B infantis 35624 and L farciminis are two strains that decrease visceral sensitivity in mice.

Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 acts on lipopeptide production with an antinociceptive effect, as observed in mice, by decreasing visceral sensitivity through calcium nociceptor flux blockade (action on GABA type B receptor).

Acting on dysbiosis by modifying fecal microbiota during probiotic intake is possible but depends on the probiotics, like B infantis 35624. In humans, B longum NCC 3001 could modify brain activations.

Dr. Sabaté disclosed financial relationships with Mayoly Spindler, Kyowa Kirin, Tillotts, Servier, Norgine, Biocodex, Merck, Viatris, Abivax, and Inventiva.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.