Nearly half of adults with a chronic hepatitis D (HDV) viral infection showed undetectable or greatly reduced viral RNA and normalized alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels with bulevirtide at 48 weeks, shows an ongoing phase 3 study conducted in the United States and four other countries.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Led by Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, of Hannover Medical School in Germany, the study included 150 patients with HDV, with and without compensated cirrhosis (mean age, 42 years; 57% male; 83% White). They were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg or 10 mg of bulevirtide subcutaneously daily for 144 weeks or, as a control group, receive no treatment for 48 weeks, followed by 10 mg of bulevirtide daily for 96 weeks. All patients were followed for 96 weeks after treatment ends.

For the primary endpoint, the combined viral and ALT response at week 48 was similar in the 2-mg (45%) and 10-mg (48%) groups, compared with 2% in the control group (one patient). Twelve percent of patients in the 2-mg group and 20% of patients in the 10-mg group had a clinical benefit, compared with none of the patients in the control group.

Among those with a combined response, normalization of the ALT level occurred in most patients by week 24, while the HDV RNA level continued to decline between week 24 and week 48, the authors wrote.

“This surrogate end point is considered to be a reasonably likely predictor of improved clinical outcomes in patients with HDV; however, longer-term data are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of bulevirtide,” the investigators wrote.

The results offer a glimmer of hope, Marc Ghany, MD, MHSc, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The goal of HDV therapy is to improve patient survival by preventing progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer,” he wrote.

In safety results, headache, pruritus, fatigue, and eosinophilia were more common in the bulevirtide groups than in the control group. All adverse events were mild to moderate.

HDV infects about 5% of people with chronic HBV and relies on HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) for transmission and infectivity. Bulevirtide is derived from a region of the large envelope protein of HBsAg and irreversibly binds to the hepatocyte entry receptor for both HDV and HBV.

Bulevirtide has received conditional approval in the European Union. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve bulevirtide over concerns about production and delivery of the drug. There are no approved treatments for HDV in the United States.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Wedemeyer disclosed research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences. He and other coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies.

Nearly half of adults with a chronic hepatitis D (HDV) viral infection showed undetectable or greatly reduced viral RNA and normalized alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels with bulevirtide at 48 weeks, shows an ongoing phase 3 study conducted in the United States and four other countries.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Led by Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, of Hannover Medical School in Germany, the study included 150 patients with HDV, with and without compensated cirrhosis (mean age, 42 years; 57% male; 83% White). They were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg or 10 mg of bulevirtide subcutaneously daily for 144 weeks or, as a control group, receive no treatment for 48 weeks, followed by 10 mg of bulevirtide daily for 96 weeks. All patients were followed for 96 weeks after treatment ends.

For the primary endpoint, the combined viral and ALT response at week 48 was similar in the 2-mg (45%) and 10-mg (48%) groups, compared with 2% in the control group (one patient). Twelve percent of patients in the 2-mg group and 20% of patients in the 10-mg group had a clinical benefit, compared with none of the patients in the control group.

Among those with a combined response, normalization of the ALT level occurred in most patients by week 24, while the HDV RNA level continued to decline between week 24 and week 48, the authors wrote.

“This surrogate end point is considered to be a reasonably likely predictor of improved clinical outcomes in patients with HDV; however, longer-term data are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of bulevirtide,” the investigators wrote.

The results offer a glimmer of hope, Marc Ghany, MD, MHSc, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The goal of HDV therapy is to improve patient survival by preventing progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer,” he wrote.

In safety results, headache, pruritus, fatigue, and eosinophilia were more common in the bulevirtide groups than in the control group. All adverse events were mild to moderate.

HDV infects about 5% of people with chronic HBV and relies on HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) for transmission and infectivity. Bulevirtide is derived from a region of the large envelope protein of HBsAg and irreversibly binds to the hepatocyte entry receptor for both HDV and HBV.

Bulevirtide has received conditional approval in the European Union. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve bulevirtide over concerns about production and delivery of the drug. There are no approved treatments for HDV in the United States.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Wedemeyer disclosed research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences. He and other coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies.

Nearly half of adults with a chronic hepatitis D (HDV) viral infection showed undetectable or greatly reduced viral RNA and normalized alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels with bulevirtide at 48 weeks, shows an ongoing phase 3 study conducted in the United States and four other countries.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Led by Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, of Hannover Medical School in Germany, the study included 150 patients with HDV, with and without compensated cirrhosis (mean age, 42 years; 57% male; 83% White). They were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg or 10 mg of bulevirtide subcutaneously daily for 144 weeks or, as a control group, receive no treatment for 48 weeks, followed by 10 mg of bulevirtide daily for 96 weeks. All patients were followed for 96 weeks after treatment ends.

For the primary endpoint, the combined viral and ALT response at week 48 was similar in the 2-mg (45%) and 10-mg (48%) groups, compared with 2% in the control group (one patient). Twelve percent of patients in the 2-mg group and 20% of patients in the 10-mg group had a clinical benefit, compared with none of the patients in the control group.

Among those with a combined response, normalization of the ALT level occurred in most patients by week 24, while the HDV RNA level continued to decline between week 24 and week 48, the authors wrote.

“This surrogate end point is considered to be a reasonably likely predictor of improved clinical outcomes in patients with HDV; however, longer-term data are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of bulevirtide,” the investigators wrote.

The results offer a glimmer of hope, Marc Ghany, MD, MHSc, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The goal of HDV therapy is to improve patient survival by preventing progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer,” he wrote.

In safety results, headache, pruritus, fatigue, and eosinophilia were more common in the bulevirtide groups than in the control group. All adverse events were mild to moderate.

HDV infects about 5% of people with chronic HBV and relies on HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) for transmission and infectivity. Bulevirtide is derived from a region of the large envelope protein of HBsAg and irreversibly binds to the hepatocyte entry receptor for both HDV and HBV.

Bulevirtide has received conditional approval in the European Union. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve bulevirtide over concerns about production and delivery of the drug. There are no approved treatments for HDV in the United States.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Wedemeyer disclosed research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences. He and other coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies.

Four themes in responses to a survey describe the multilevel barriers that make it difficult for primary care teams to incorporate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their practices, according to research published in JAMA Network Open.

Elizabeth J. Austin, PhD, MPH, with the department of health systems and population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues describe the four major themes in the answers:

• Structural barriers delay or limit primary care team responsiveness to patients needing opioid-related care.
• Patient engagement was more challenging than expected.
• Prescribing physicians needed tools and to be able to see the patients on an ongoing basis.
• Teams had conflicting views on expanding MOUD care.

The survey

The researchers used a cohort of 12 clinics diverse in geography and structure and explored the experiences multidisciplinary primary care teams had in expanding MOUD services, such as use of buprenorphine and naltrexone.

A sample of 62 team members completed the survey for a response rate of 77%. Two-thirds (66%) identified as female and 46 (74%) identified as White. Evaluation of responses occurred between 2020 and 2022 in a sample of primary care clinics that agreed to participate in the Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary Care (CHAMP) study. The trial is ongoing.
 

Rigid scheduling a barrier

Some respondents said inflexible scheduling tied their hands.

One clinician responded, “[M]y practice has been really busy right now ... it’s been tough to find openings for my current patients as it is.”

Others described closed or limited patient panels, often set by their health systems. Twenty clinicians (32%) said they were worried their clinic couldn’t accommodate the volume of patients seeking OUD treatment.

Some reported productivity pressure from their health systems to keep the schedule full, which doesn’t allow for walk-in patients needing MOUD.
 

Frustration with no-shows

Some responses indicated frustration in locating patients and with no-shows.

One responded, “[W]e can’t find these people for months and months. [...] I’m spending 3 weeks, 4 weeks, trying to get them in.” Another said, “[I]t’s frustrating when patients don’t show up when they have been referred.”

Margret Chang, MD, a primary care doctor at Tri-River Family Health Center of Worcester, Mass., who was not part of the study, said the four categories the authors describe ring true.
 

Stigma for providers and patients

Dr. Chang said the biggest overarching part of those barriers comes down to stigma, but she says it’s not just a problem for patients, but for providers as well.

In fact, a responder in the Austin et al. survey wrote, “Our faculty group as a whole has expressed that that’s not the direction they want for our clinic; we already provide more psychiatric care and addiction medicine than other clinics, but we can’t be like the addiction medicine clinic in town either.”

Dr. Chang’s clinic, on the other hand, recruits addicted patients to their primary care practice by making a local drug court, addiction-support services in the community, and their colleagues in the UMass Health System aware that their services are available. Patients also refer their friends to the clinic and the clinic has a steady influx.

“I honestly feel that primary care is the discipline that really should be involved in substance disorder treatment,” says Dr. Chang, who is an assistant professor of medicine and the addiction curriculum director for internal medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester. “In medicine there’s a huge stigma around even being able to help these patients even though we have medications that are pretty effective.”

She runs a medication-assisted treatment program and said her semirural clinic and one other are the only two primary care clinics in the Worcester area with such a program.

Patients also have “huge inertia around taking a medication to recover from addiction or substance abuse,” she says.
 

Confidence lacking in treating patients

Dr. Chang said primary care residents in recent years are coming out of medical school with knowledge about treating OUD, but they often run into more experienced physicians who didn’t get training in the treatment so they feel intimidated about initiating the treatment.

At their clinic, Dr. Chang says, they have a nurse dedicated to OUD, which helps alleviate some of the barriers described in the survey. Patients know they can contact a particular person at the clinic who is dedicated to their needs. The nurse can track down patients who may miss appointments or be hard to locate so physicians don’t have to add that to their workload. They can collect fluid samples and connect patients to services.

Dr. Chang says a nurse might say, “I see we had you on (buprenorphine-naloxone) for opioid use disorder but I see you also have cocaine in your urine. How can we keep you safe?”

Having a health team member, whether a nurse or medical assistant or social worker, designated to help with people who need OUD treatment really makes a difference, she says.

People living with addiction “have a lot of needs,” she says, “and they are hard to address in the typical template a primary care provider might have.”

Family medicine, she says, has been more open to adding support staff for this population than other specialties.

Coauthor Andrew J. Saxon, MD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study as well as personal fees from Indivior and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Coauthor John C. Fortney, PhD, reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Anna D. Ratzliff, MD, PhD, reported grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study and royalties from Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This story was updated on 8/15/2023.

Four themes in responses to a survey describe the multilevel barriers that make it difficult for primary care teams to incorporate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their practices, according to research published in JAMA Network Open.

Elizabeth J. Austin, PhD, MPH, with the department of health systems and population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues describe the four major themes in the answers:

• Structural barriers delay or limit primary care team responsiveness to patients needing opioid-related care.
• Patient engagement was more challenging than expected.
• Prescribing physicians needed tools and to be able to see the patients on an ongoing basis.
• Teams had conflicting views on expanding MOUD care.

The survey

The researchers used a cohort of 12 clinics diverse in geography and structure and explored the experiences multidisciplinary primary care teams had in expanding MOUD services, such as use of buprenorphine and naltrexone.

A sample of 62 team members completed the survey for a response rate of 77%. Two-thirds (66%) identified as female and 46 (74%) identified as White. Evaluation of responses occurred between 2020 and 2022 in a sample of primary care clinics that agreed to participate in the Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary Care (CHAMP) study. The trial is ongoing.
 

Rigid scheduling a barrier

Some respondents said inflexible scheduling tied their hands.

One clinician responded, “[M]y practice has been really busy right now ... it’s been tough to find openings for my current patients as it is.”

Others described closed or limited patient panels, often set by their health systems. Twenty clinicians (32%) said they were worried their clinic couldn’t accommodate the volume of patients seeking OUD treatment.

Some reported productivity pressure from their health systems to keep the schedule full, which doesn’t allow for walk-in patients needing MOUD.
 

Frustration with no-shows

Some responses indicated frustration in locating patients and with no-shows.

One responded, “[W]e can’t find these people for months and months. [...] I’m spending 3 weeks, 4 weeks, trying to get them in.” Another said, “[I]t’s frustrating when patients don’t show up when they have been referred.”

Margret Chang, MD, a primary care doctor at Tri-River Family Health Center of Worcester, Mass., who was not part of the study, said the four categories the authors describe ring true.
 

Stigma for providers and patients

Dr. Chang said the biggest overarching part of those barriers comes down to stigma, but she says it’s not just a problem for patients, but for providers as well.

In fact, a responder in the Austin et al. survey wrote, “Our faculty group as a whole has expressed that that’s not the direction they want for our clinic; we already provide more psychiatric care and addiction medicine than other clinics, but we can’t be like the addiction medicine clinic in town either.”

Dr. Chang’s clinic, on the other hand, recruits addicted patients to their primary care practice by making a local drug court, addiction-support services in the community, and their colleagues in the UMass Health System aware that their services are available. Patients also refer their friends to the clinic and the clinic has a steady influx.

“I honestly feel that primary care is the discipline that really should be involved in substance disorder treatment,” says Dr. Chang, who is an assistant professor of medicine and the addiction curriculum director for internal medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester. “In medicine there’s a huge stigma around even being able to help these patients even though we have medications that are pretty effective.”

She runs a medication-assisted treatment program and said her semirural clinic and one other are the only two primary care clinics in the Worcester area with such a program.

Patients also have “huge inertia around taking a medication to recover from addiction or substance abuse,” she says.
 

Confidence lacking in treating patients

Dr. Chang said primary care residents in recent years are coming out of medical school with knowledge about treating OUD, but they often run into more experienced physicians who didn’t get training in the treatment so they feel intimidated about initiating the treatment.

At their clinic, Dr. Chang says, they have a nurse dedicated to OUD, which helps alleviate some of the barriers described in the survey. Patients know they can contact a particular person at the clinic who is dedicated to their needs. The nurse can track down patients who may miss appointments or be hard to locate so physicians don’t have to add that to their workload. They can collect fluid samples and connect patients to services.

Dr. Chang says a nurse might say, “I see we had you on (buprenorphine-naloxone) for opioid use disorder but I see you also have cocaine in your urine. How can we keep you safe?”

Having a health team member, whether a nurse or medical assistant or social worker, designated to help with people who need OUD treatment really makes a difference, she says.

People living with addiction “have a lot of needs,” she says, “and they are hard to address in the typical template a primary care provider might have.”

Family medicine, she says, has been more open to adding support staff for this population than other specialties.

Coauthor Andrew J. Saxon, MD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study as well as personal fees from Indivior and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Coauthor John C. Fortney, PhD, reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Anna D. Ratzliff, MD, PhD, reported grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study and royalties from Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This story was updated on 8/15/2023.

Four themes in responses to a survey describe the multilevel barriers that make it difficult for primary care teams to incorporate medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in their practices, according to research published in JAMA Network Open.

Elizabeth J. Austin, PhD, MPH, with the department of health systems and population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues describe the four major themes in the answers:

• Structural barriers delay or limit primary care team responsiveness to patients needing opioid-related care.
• Patient engagement was more challenging than expected.
• Prescribing physicians needed tools and to be able to see the patients on an ongoing basis.
• Teams had conflicting views on expanding MOUD care.

The survey

The researchers used a cohort of 12 clinics diverse in geography and structure and explored the experiences multidisciplinary primary care teams had in expanding MOUD services, such as use of buprenorphine and naltrexone.

A sample of 62 team members completed the survey for a response rate of 77%. Two-thirds (66%) identified as female and 46 (74%) identified as White. Evaluation of responses occurred between 2020 and 2022 in a sample of primary care clinics that agreed to participate in the Collaborating to Heal Addiction and Mental Health in Primary Care (CHAMP) study. The trial is ongoing.
 

Rigid scheduling a barrier

Some respondents said inflexible scheduling tied their hands.

One clinician responded, “[M]y practice has been really busy right now ... it’s been tough to find openings for my current patients as it is.”

Others described closed or limited patient panels, often set by their health systems. Twenty clinicians (32%) said they were worried their clinic couldn’t accommodate the volume of patients seeking OUD treatment.

Some reported productivity pressure from their health systems to keep the schedule full, which doesn’t allow for walk-in patients needing MOUD.
 

Frustration with no-shows

Some responses indicated frustration in locating patients and with no-shows.

One responded, “[W]e can’t find these people for months and months. [...] I’m spending 3 weeks, 4 weeks, trying to get them in.” Another said, “[I]t’s frustrating when patients don’t show up when they have been referred.”

Margret Chang, MD, a primary care doctor at Tri-River Family Health Center of Worcester, Mass., who was not part of the study, said the four categories the authors describe ring true.
 

Stigma for providers and patients

Dr. Chang said the biggest overarching part of those barriers comes down to stigma, but she says it’s not just a problem for patients, but for providers as well.

In fact, a responder in the Austin et al. survey wrote, “Our faculty group as a whole has expressed that that’s not the direction they want for our clinic; we already provide more psychiatric care and addiction medicine than other clinics, but we can’t be like the addiction medicine clinic in town either.”

Dr. Chang’s clinic, on the other hand, recruits addicted patients to their primary care practice by making a local drug court, addiction-support services in the community, and their colleagues in the UMass Health System aware that their services are available. Patients also refer their friends to the clinic and the clinic has a steady influx.

“I honestly feel that primary care is the discipline that really should be involved in substance disorder treatment,” says Dr. Chang, who is an assistant professor of medicine and the addiction curriculum director for internal medicine at UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester. “In medicine there’s a huge stigma around even being able to help these patients even though we have medications that are pretty effective.”

She runs a medication-assisted treatment program and said her semirural clinic and one other are the only two primary care clinics in the Worcester area with such a program.

Patients also have “huge inertia around taking a medication to recover from addiction or substance abuse,” she says.
 

Confidence lacking in treating patients

Dr. Chang said primary care residents in recent years are coming out of medical school with knowledge about treating OUD, but they often run into more experienced physicians who didn’t get training in the treatment so they feel intimidated about initiating the treatment.

At their clinic, Dr. Chang says, they have a nurse dedicated to OUD, which helps alleviate some of the barriers described in the survey. Patients know they can contact a particular person at the clinic who is dedicated to their needs. The nurse can track down patients who may miss appointments or be hard to locate so physicians don’t have to add that to their workload. They can collect fluid samples and connect patients to services.

Dr. Chang says a nurse might say, “I see we had you on (buprenorphine-naloxone) for opioid use disorder but I see you also have cocaine in your urine. How can we keep you safe?”

Having a health team member, whether a nurse or medical assistant or social worker, designated to help with people who need OUD treatment really makes a difference, she says.

People living with addiction “have a lot of needs,” she says, “and they are hard to address in the typical template a primary care provider might have.”

Family medicine, she says, has been more open to adding support staff for this population than other specialties.

Coauthor Andrew J. Saxon, MD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study as well as personal fees from Indivior and royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Coauthor John C. Fortney, PhD, reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Anna D. Ratzliff, MD, PhD, reported grants from the University of Washington during the conduct of the study and royalties from Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This story was updated on 8/15/2023.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research calls into question the established method of assessing patient response to antidepressant treatment and expands the concepts of “responder” and “nonresponder.” 

Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).

Brown University

Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.

“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.

The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

What’s the best tool?

“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”

Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.

The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
 

Doing better than we think

The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.

To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:

• 14 depressive symptoms.
• 11 nondepressive symptoms.
• 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
• 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
• 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
• 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).

Patients were divided into three groups:

• Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
• PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
• Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).

The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.

Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.

Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.

Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.

As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).

“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
 

‘Better enough’

Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.

Columbia University Medical Center

“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”

Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”

He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research calls into question the established method of assessing patient response to antidepressant treatment and expands the concepts of “responder” and “nonresponder.” 

Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).

Brown University

Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.

“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.

The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

What’s the best tool?

“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”

Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.

The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
 

Doing better than we think

The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.

To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:

• 14 depressive symptoms.
• 11 nondepressive symptoms.
• 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
• 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
• 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
• 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).

Patients were divided into three groups:

• Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
• PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
• Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).

The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.

Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.

Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.

Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.

As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).

“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
 

‘Better enough’

Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.

Columbia University Medical Center

“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”

Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”

He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research calls into question the established method of assessing patient response to antidepressant treatment and expands the concepts of “responder” and “nonresponder.” 

Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).

Brown University

Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.

“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.

“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.

The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

What’s the best tool?

“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”

Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.

The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.

Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
 

Doing better than we think

The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.

To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:

• 14 depressive symptoms.
• 11 nondepressive symptoms.
• 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
• 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
• 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
• 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).

Patients were divided into three groups:

• Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
• PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
• Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).

The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.

Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.

Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.

Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.

As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).

“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
 

‘Better enough’

Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.

Columbia University Medical Center

“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”

Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”

He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite advances in treatment, a large proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not achieve or stay in remission even after further lines of treatment have been given. Up until now, one major obstacle has impeded our interpretation of studies focusing on patients suffering from this chronic condition: the lack of standard criteria and terminology among authors.

Under the guidance of the endpoints cluster of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD), a group of experts held a consensus meeting to propose a common operative definition for “difficult-to-treat IBD.” It’s the first step to better understanding this condition and designing targeted studies and interventions.
 

The definition

After the meeting, the experts agreed that “difficult-to-treat IBD” is defined by these characteristics:

• The failure of biologics and advanced small molecules with at least two different mechanisms of action.
• Postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s disease after two surgical resections in adults or one in children.
• Chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (inflammation of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [J-pouch] created in patients with ulcerative colitis who have had total colectomy surgery).
• Complex perianal disease (difficult-to-treat Crohn’s disease).
• Comorbid psychosocial complications that impair disease management (for example, comorbid disorders that obstruct treatment compliance, participation in follow-up visits, or objective assessment of symptoms by clinicians).

The path here

The starting point was the IOIBD-sponsored 2022 global survey in which doctors treating patients with IBD were asked what they thought contributed to difficult-to-treat IBD. Using the responses from that survey, a series of statements were drawn up covering these three main areas: failure of medical and surgical treatments, disease phenotypes, and specific complaints from patients (not limited to bowel disease).

The statements were scrutinized by a 16-person task force made up of experts from eight European countries, Canada, Japan, Israel, and the United States. The project and its findings were published in the journal The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Using the modified Delphi technique, the experts argued for or against the 20 statements proposed. Consensus was achieved for five of these statements (meaning that at least 75% of voters were in agreement).
 

What does it mean?

“The scope of this consensus initiative was twofold,” explain the authors. “First, we wanted to help standardize study reporting and promote clinical study designs that include patients with difficult-to-treat IBD by proposing common terminology. Second, we hoped to identify, within clinical practice, a group of patients requiring specific treatment or referral to a specialist unit. For patients with conditions resistant to two or more advanced drug types (what is referred to as difficult-to-treat IBD), more aggressive treatment strategies, such as combined therapies or multidisciplinary approaches, should be taken into consideration.

“In the field of rheumatology, the creation of common criteria for difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis has allowed researchers to concentrate their efforts on identifying progressive disease markers, assessing drug efficacy, mechanisms of inefficacy, personalized management strategies, and analyzing the use of health care resources and costs. Similar advances could be achieved in the area of inflammatory bowel disease.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite advances in treatment, a large proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not achieve or stay in remission even after further lines of treatment have been given. Up until now, one major obstacle has impeded our interpretation of studies focusing on patients suffering from this chronic condition: the lack of standard criteria and terminology among authors.

Under the guidance of the endpoints cluster of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD), a group of experts held a consensus meeting to propose a common operative definition for “difficult-to-treat IBD.” It’s the first step to better understanding this condition and designing targeted studies and interventions.
 

The definition

After the meeting, the experts agreed that “difficult-to-treat IBD” is defined by these characteristics:

• The failure of biologics and advanced small molecules with at least two different mechanisms of action.
• Postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s disease after two surgical resections in adults or one in children.
• Chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (inflammation of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [J-pouch] created in patients with ulcerative colitis who have had total colectomy surgery).
• Complex perianal disease (difficult-to-treat Crohn’s disease).
• Comorbid psychosocial complications that impair disease management (for example, comorbid disorders that obstruct treatment compliance, participation in follow-up visits, or objective assessment of symptoms by clinicians).

The path here

The starting point was the IOIBD-sponsored 2022 global survey in which doctors treating patients with IBD were asked what they thought contributed to difficult-to-treat IBD. Using the responses from that survey, a series of statements were drawn up covering these three main areas: failure of medical and surgical treatments, disease phenotypes, and specific complaints from patients (not limited to bowel disease).

The statements were scrutinized by a 16-person task force made up of experts from eight European countries, Canada, Japan, Israel, and the United States. The project and its findings were published in the journal The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Using the modified Delphi technique, the experts argued for or against the 20 statements proposed. Consensus was achieved for five of these statements (meaning that at least 75% of voters were in agreement).
 

What does it mean?

“The scope of this consensus initiative was twofold,” explain the authors. “First, we wanted to help standardize study reporting and promote clinical study designs that include patients with difficult-to-treat IBD by proposing common terminology. Second, we hoped to identify, within clinical practice, a group of patients requiring specific treatment or referral to a specialist unit. For patients with conditions resistant to two or more advanced drug types (what is referred to as difficult-to-treat IBD), more aggressive treatment strategies, such as combined therapies or multidisciplinary approaches, should be taken into consideration.

“In the field of rheumatology, the creation of common criteria for difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis has allowed researchers to concentrate their efforts on identifying progressive disease markers, assessing drug efficacy, mechanisms of inefficacy, personalized management strategies, and analyzing the use of health care resources and costs. Similar advances could be achieved in the area of inflammatory bowel disease.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite advances in treatment, a large proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) do not achieve or stay in remission even after further lines of treatment have been given. Up until now, one major obstacle has impeded our interpretation of studies focusing on patients suffering from this chronic condition: the lack of standard criteria and terminology among authors.

Under the guidance of the endpoints cluster of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IOIBD), a group of experts held a consensus meeting to propose a common operative definition for “difficult-to-treat IBD.” It’s the first step to better understanding this condition and designing targeted studies and interventions.
 

The definition

After the meeting, the experts agreed that “difficult-to-treat IBD” is defined by these characteristics:

• The failure of biologics and advanced small molecules with at least two different mechanisms of action.
• Postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s disease after two surgical resections in adults or one in children.
• Chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (inflammation of the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis [J-pouch] created in patients with ulcerative colitis who have had total colectomy surgery).
• Complex perianal disease (difficult-to-treat Crohn’s disease).
• Comorbid psychosocial complications that impair disease management (for example, comorbid disorders that obstruct treatment compliance, participation in follow-up visits, or objective assessment of symptoms by clinicians).

The path here

The starting point was the IOIBD-sponsored 2022 global survey in which doctors treating patients with IBD were asked what they thought contributed to difficult-to-treat IBD. Using the responses from that survey, a series of statements were drawn up covering these three main areas: failure of medical and surgical treatments, disease phenotypes, and specific complaints from patients (not limited to bowel disease).

The statements were scrutinized by a 16-person task force made up of experts from eight European countries, Canada, Japan, Israel, and the United States. The project and its findings were published in the journal The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Using the modified Delphi technique, the experts argued for or against the 20 statements proposed. Consensus was achieved for five of these statements (meaning that at least 75% of voters were in agreement).
 

What does it mean?

“The scope of this consensus initiative was twofold,” explain the authors. “First, we wanted to help standardize study reporting and promote clinical study designs that include patients with difficult-to-treat IBD by proposing common terminology. Second, we hoped to identify, within clinical practice, a group of patients requiring specific treatment or referral to a specialist unit. For patients with conditions resistant to two or more advanced drug types (what is referred to as difficult-to-treat IBD), more aggressive treatment strategies, such as combined therapies or multidisciplinary approaches, should be taken into consideration.

“In the field of rheumatology, the creation of common criteria for difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis has allowed researchers to concentrate their efforts on identifying progressive disease markers, assessing drug efficacy, mechanisms of inefficacy, personalized management strategies, and analyzing the use of health care resources and costs. Similar advances could be achieved in the area of inflammatory bowel disease.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Even after accounting for sociodemographic factors, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric diagnoses, autism is associated with an 83% increased risk of self-harm among females and a 47% increased risk among males.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence shows those with autism have over threefold greater odds than their counterparts without the disorder of self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death, but reasons for these elevated risks are unclear.

Using various linked databases in the province of Ontario, researchers identified all individuals with an autism diagnosis from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 2018, and matched each on age and sex to four nonautistic individuals for the comparison group.

Investigators created two cohorts to separately evaluate outcomes of self-harm events leading to emergency health care and suicide death with the accrual period for both cohorts beginning at a person’s 10th birthday.

The self-harm cohort included 379,630 individuals while the suicide cohort included 334,690 individuals.

TAKEAWAY:

Over 15 years, autistic females showed the highest cumulative self-harm events, followed by autistic males, nonautistic females, and nonautistic males; over 25 years, autistic males had the highest cumulative incidence of suicide death, followed by autistic females, nonautistic males, and nonautistic females.

Autism had independent associations with self-harm events (females: relative rate, 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.08]; males: RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.69]) even after accounting for sociodemographic factors (varied directions of associations), intellectual disabilities (associated with increased risks), and psychiatric diagnoses including mood and anxiety, psychotic, addiction, and personality disorders (associated with increased risks).

For both females and males, final models showed autism per se was not significantly associated with suicide death, but certain correlates were linked to risk. Among both sexes, intellectual disabilities were associated with reduced risks and psychiatric diagnoses were associated with increased risks.

As a substantial proportion (28.4%) of the suicide cohort did not have data on self-harm, researchers were unable to examine the association of self-harm with suicide death.

IN PRACTICE:

That psychiatric diagnoses increased suicide risks among people with autism suggests supports to reduce such risks “should consider multifactorial mechanisms, with a particular focus on the prevention and timely treatment of psychiatric illnesses,” write the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Meng-Chuan Lai, MD, PhD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The autism cohort didn’t capture those diagnosed in private practices or with subtle presentations not yet diagnosed. Misclassification of autistic people in the nonautistic cohort may have resulted in underestimation of suicide-related outcomes. The administrative data don’t reliably identify diagnoses associated with suicide risks such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or subcategories of mood disorders, and don’t contain information about risk and protective mechanisms of suicide behaviors such as family history.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from ICES, an independent nonprofit research institute; the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; the Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair. Dr. Lai reported receiving personal fees from SAGE Publications as an editorial honorarium outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving honoraria from the BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.

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

TOPLINE:

Even after accounting for sociodemographic factors, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric diagnoses, autism is associated with an 83% increased risk of self-harm among females and a 47% increased risk among males.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence shows those with autism have over threefold greater odds than their counterparts without the disorder of self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death, but reasons for these elevated risks are unclear.

Using various linked databases in the province of Ontario, researchers identified all individuals with an autism diagnosis from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 2018, and matched each on age and sex to four nonautistic individuals for the comparison group.

Investigators created two cohorts to separately evaluate outcomes of self-harm events leading to emergency health care and suicide death with the accrual period for both cohorts beginning at a person’s 10th birthday.

The self-harm cohort included 379,630 individuals while the suicide cohort included 334,690 individuals.

TAKEAWAY:

Over 15 years, autistic females showed the highest cumulative self-harm events, followed by autistic males, nonautistic females, and nonautistic males; over 25 years, autistic males had the highest cumulative incidence of suicide death, followed by autistic females, nonautistic males, and nonautistic females.

Autism had independent associations with self-harm events (females: relative rate, 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.08]; males: RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.69]) even after accounting for sociodemographic factors (varied directions of associations), intellectual disabilities (associated with increased risks), and psychiatric diagnoses including mood and anxiety, psychotic, addiction, and personality disorders (associated with increased risks).

For both females and males, final models showed autism per se was not significantly associated with suicide death, but certain correlates were linked to risk. Among both sexes, intellectual disabilities were associated with reduced risks and psychiatric diagnoses were associated with increased risks.

As a substantial proportion (28.4%) of the suicide cohort did not have data on self-harm, researchers were unable to examine the association of self-harm with suicide death.

IN PRACTICE:

That psychiatric diagnoses increased suicide risks among people with autism suggests supports to reduce such risks “should consider multifactorial mechanisms, with a particular focus on the prevention and timely treatment of psychiatric illnesses,” write the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Meng-Chuan Lai, MD, PhD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The autism cohort didn’t capture those diagnosed in private practices or with subtle presentations not yet diagnosed. Misclassification of autistic people in the nonautistic cohort may have resulted in underestimation of suicide-related outcomes. The administrative data don’t reliably identify diagnoses associated with suicide risks such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or subcategories of mood disorders, and don’t contain information about risk and protective mechanisms of suicide behaviors such as family history.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from ICES, an independent nonprofit research institute; the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; the Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair. Dr. Lai reported receiving personal fees from SAGE Publications as an editorial honorarium outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving honoraria from the BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.

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

TOPLINE:

Even after accounting for sociodemographic factors, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric diagnoses, autism is associated with an 83% increased risk of self-harm among females and a 47% increased risk among males.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence shows those with autism have over threefold greater odds than their counterparts without the disorder of self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death, but reasons for these elevated risks are unclear.

Using various linked databases in the province of Ontario, researchers identified all individuals with an autism diagnosis from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 2018, and matched each on age and sex to four nonautistic individuals for the comparison group.

Investigators created two cohorts to separately evaluate outcomes of self-harm events leading to emergency health care and suicide death with the accrual period for both cohorts beginning at a person’s 10th birthday.

The self-harm cohort included 379,630 individuals while the suicide cohort included 334,690 individuals.

TAKEAWAY:

Over 15 years, autistic females showed the highest cumulative self-harm events, followed by autistic males, nonautistic females, and nonautistic males; over 25 years, autistic males had the highest cumulative incidence of suicide death, followed by autistic females, nonautistic males, and nonautistic females.

Autism had independent associations with self-harm events (females: relative rate, 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.08]; males: RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.69]) even after accounting for sociodemographic factors (varied directions of associations), intellectual disabilities (associated with increased risks), and psychiatric diagnoses including mood and anxiety, psychotic, addiction, and personality disorders (associated with increased risks).

For both females and males, final models showed autism per se was not significantly associated with suicide death, but certain correlates were linked to risk. Among both sexes, intellectual disabilities were associated with reduced risks and psychiatric diagnoses were associated with increased risks.

As a substantial proportion (28.4%) of the suicide cohort did not have data on self-harm, researchers were unable to examine the association of self-harm with suicide death.

IN PRACTICE:

That psychiatric diagnoses increased suicide risks among people with autism suggests supports to reduce such risks “should consider multifactorial mechanisms, with a particular focus on the prevention and timely treatment of psychiatric illnesses,” write the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Meng-Chuan Lai, MD, PhD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The autism cohort didn’t capture those diagnosed in private practices or with subtle presentations not yet diagnosed. Misclassification of autistic people in the nonautistic cohort may have resulted in underestimation of suicide-related outcomes. The administrative data don’t reliably identify diagnoses associated with suicide risks such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or subcategories of mood disorders, and don’t contain information about risk and protective mechanisms of suicide behaviors such as family history.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from ICES, an independent nonprofit research institute; the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; the Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair. Dr. Lai reported receiving personal fees from SAGE Publications as an editorial honorarium outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving honoraria from the BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.

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

In a new study, researchers report that they have found epigenetic methylation markers on 15 genes that appear to foreshadow psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a development that could bring scientists closer to developing a DNA test to predict which patients with psoriasis will develop the condition.

KTSDESIGN/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

While no predictive test is in sight yet, the findings published in Arthritis & Rheumatology mark an important step, study lead author Omar F. Cruz-Correa, PhD, of the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Program in the University Health Network, Toronto, said in an interview. “In the future, markers like these could be measured by dermatologists and even general practitioners to help identify new psoriasis patients at a high risk of developing PsA,” he said. “Then both the health care team and the patients themselves could be more aware of their increased risk and the pressing need of closer monitoring for musculoskeletal symptoms. Once the first symptoms appear, treatment can be initiated early on, helping to prevent permanent joint damage.”

An estimated 30% of patients with psoriasis will develop PsA, too, putting them at higher risk of disability and death. According to Dr. Cruz-Correa, “one of the more pressing matters in PsA is the lack of means of predicting which psoriasis patients will develop PsA.”

DNA methylation, the topic of the new study, has already been linked to psoriasis and PsA. It’s “relatively easy to measure and helps regulate gene expression in response to environmental effects,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “DNA methylation is also appealing because it serves as an intermediary between environment and genetic factors as it’s transmitted between generations of cells and influenced by external factors.”

For the new study, researchers examined the DNA of 117 patients with psoriasis – 58 who went on to develop PsA (“converters”) and another 59 who were matched to converters but did not develop PsA (“nonconverters”). The patients were in a larger group of 700 patients with psoriasis who had the disease for a mean of about 17 years at the time of blood sampling.

Samples from converters were taken an average of 5.16 years (± 12.77 years) before PsA set in.

The researchers report that they found “36 highly relevant methylation markers … across 15 genes and several intergenic regions. A classification model relying on these markers identified converters and nonconverters with an area under the ROC curve of 0.9644.”

Statistically, this number is high and means that “the DNA methylation markers are really good at identifying psoriasis patients who will develop PsA and those that will not,” at least in this specific patient group, Dr. Cruz-Correa said.

At this point, the number of markers is a bit too high to develop a feasible DNA test to predict PsA, he said. “However, the results from our study have also pointed us toward some interesting metabolic pathways that may warrant further study.”
 

What’s next?

The first step forward “is the validation of these predictive DNA methylation markers in a wider population of patients with varied clinical and demographic characteristics. This would help assess the potential for generalization of such a test,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “A second step is to assess the potential impact of these methylation markers on disease activity and treatment response, which are clinical outcomes of great importance to patients.”

Meanwhile, he said, “there are ongoing efforts to shed light into how DNA methylation integrates with other epigenetic mechanisms like micro-RNAs to regulate gene expression in concert with one another. An integrative look into these mechanisms may be able to give insight into the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease in a way that has not been possible before.”

In an interview, Johann E. Gudjonsson, MD, PhD, professor of skin molecular immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the study “is interesting and important as it indicates that there are changes in the blood that occur before the development of psoriatic arthritis. However, it does not provide much in terms of novel insights into the mechanisms involved and is still a long way away from being useful as a clinical predictor or biomarker.”

The National Psoriasis Foundation, Krembil Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided support for the study. Dr. Cruz-Correa reports support from the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Dr. Gudjonsson has no relevant financial relationships.
 

In a new study, researchers report that they have found epigenetic methylation markers on 15 genes that appear to foreshadow psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a development that could bring scientists closer to developing a DNA test to predict which patients with psoriasis will develop the condition.

KTSDESIGN/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

While no predictive test is in sight yet, the findings published in Arthritis & Rheumatology mark an important step, study lead author Omar F. Cruz-Correa, PhD, of the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Program in the University Health Network, Toronto, said in an interview. “In the future, markers like these could be measured by dermatologists and even general practitioners to help identify new psoriasis patients at a high risk of developing PsA,” he said. “Then both the health care team and the patients themselves could be more aware of their increased risk and the pressing need of closer monitoring for musculoskeletal symptoms. Once the first symptoms appear, treatment can be initiated early on, helping to prevent permanent joint damage.”

An estimated 30% of patients with psoriasis will develop PsA, too, putting them at higher risk of disability and death. According to Dr. Cruz-Correa, “one of the more pressing matters in PsA is the lack of means of predicting which psoriasis patients will develop PsA.”

DNA methylation, the topic of the new study, has already been linked to psoriasis and PsA. It’s “relatively easy to measure and helps regulate gene expression in response to environmental effects,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “DNA methylation is also appealing because it serves as an intermediary between environment and genetic factors as it’s transmitted between generations of cells and influenced by external factors.”

For the new study, researchers examined the DNA of 117 patients with psoriasis – 58 who went on to develop PsA (“converters”) and another 59 who were matched to converters but did not develop PsA (“nonconverters”). The patients were in a larger group of 700 patients with psoriasis who had the disease for a mean of about 17 years at the time of blood sampling.

Samples from converters were taken an average of 5.16 years (± 12.77 years) before PsA set in.

The researchers report that they found “36 highly relevant methylation markers … across 15 genes and several intergenic regions. A classification model relying on these markers identified converters and nonconverters with an area under the ROC curve of 0.9644.”

Statistically, this number is high and means that “the DNA methylation markers are really good at identifying psoriasis patients who will develop PsA and those that will not,” at least in this specific patient group, Dr. Cruz-Correa said.

At this point, the number of markers is a bit too high to develop a feasible DNA test to predict PsA, he said. “However, the results from our study have also pointed us toward some interesting metabolic pathways that may warrant further study.”
 

What’s next?

The first step forward “is the validation of these predictive DNA methylation markers in a wider population of patients with varied clinical and demographic characteristics. This would help assess the potential for generalization of such a test,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “A second step is to assess the potential impact of these methylation markers on disease activity and treatment response, which are clinical outcomes of great importance to patients.”

Meanwhile, he said, “there are ongoing efforts to shed light into how DNA methylation integrates with other epigenetic mechanisms like micro-RNAs to regulate gene expression in concert with one another. An integrative look into these mechanisms may be able to give insight into the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease in a way that has not been possible before.”

In an interview, Johann E. Gudjonsson, MD, PhD, professor of skin molecular immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the study “is interesting and important as it indicates that there are changes in the blood that occur before the development of psoriatic arthritis. However, it does not provide much in terms of novel insights into the mechanisms involved and is still a long way away from being useful as a clinical predictor or biomarker.”

The National Psoriasis Foundation, Krembil Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided support for the study. Dr. Cruz-Correa reports support from the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Dr. Gudjonsson has no relevant financial relationships.
 

In a new study, researchers report that they have found epigenetic methylation markers on 15 genes that appear to foreshadow psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a development that could bring scientists closer to developing a DNA test to predict which patients with psoriasis will develop the condition.

KTSDESIGN/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

While no predictive test is in sight yet, the findings published in Arthritis & Rheumatology mark an important step, study lead author Omar F. Cruz-Correa, PhD, of the Psoriatic Arthritis Research Program in the University Health Network, Toronto, said in an interview. “In the future, markers like these could be measured by dermatologists and even general practitioners to help identify new psoriasis patients at a high risk of developing PsA,” he said. “Then both the health care team and the patients themselves could be more aware of their increased risk and the pressing need of closer monitoring for musculoskeletal symptoms. Once the first symptoms appear, treatment can be initiated early on, helping to prevent permanent joint damage.”

An estimated 30% of patients with psoriasis will develop PsA, too, putting them at higher risk of disability and death. According to Dr. Cruz-Correa, “one of the more pressing matters in PsA is the lack of means of predicting which psoriasis patients will develop PsA.”

DNA methylation, the topic of the new study, has already been linked to psoriasis and PsA. It’s “relatively easy to measure and helps regulate gene expression in response to environmental effects,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “DNA methylation is also appealing because it serves as an intermediary between environment and genetic factors as it’s transmitted between generations of cells and influenced by external factors.”

For the new study, researchers examined the DNA of 117 patients with psoriasis – 58 who went on to develop PsA (“converters”) and another 59 who were matched to converters but did not develop PsA (“nonconverters”). The patients were in a larger group of 700 patients with psoriasis who had the disease for a mean of about 17 years at the time of blood sampling.

Samples from converters were taken an average of 5.16 years (± 12.77 years) before PsA set in.

The researchers report that they found “36 highly relevant methylation markers … across 15 genes and several intergenic regions. A classification model relying on these markers identified converters and nonconverters with an area under the ROC curve of 0.9644.”

Statistically, this number is high and means that “the DNA methylation markers are really good at identifying psoriasis patients who will develop PsA and those that will not,” at least in this specific patient group, Dr. Cruz-Correa said.

At this point, the number of markers is a bit too high to develop a feasible DNA test to predict PsA, he said. “However, the results from our study have also pointed us toward some interesting metabolic pathways that may warrant further study.”
 

What’s next?

The first step forward “is the validation of these predictive DNA methylation markers in a wider population of patients with varied clinical and demographic characteristics. This would help assess the potential for generalization of such a test,” Dr. Cruz-Correa said. “A second step is to assess the potential impact of these methylation markers on disease activity and treatment response, which are clinical outcomes of great importance to patients.”

Meanwhile, he said, “there are ongoing efforts to shed light into how DNA methylation integrates with other epigenetic mechanisms like micro-RNAs to regulate gene expression in concert with one another. An integrative look into these mechanisms may be able to give insight into the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease in a way that has not been possible before.”

In an interview, Johann E. Gudjonsson, MD, PhD, professor of skin molecular immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said the study “is interesting and important as it indicates that there are changes in the blood that occur before the development of psoriatic arthritis. However, it does not provide much in terms of novel insights into the mechanisms involved and is still a long way away from being useful as a clinical predictor or biomarker.”

The National Psoriasis Foundation, Krembil Foundation, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided support for the study. Dr. Cruz-Correa reports support from the National Psoriasis Foundation and the Arthritis Society. Dr. Gudjonsson has no relevant financial relationships.
 

A comprehensive new analysis estimates that 2.4 million Americans have been diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and up to 56,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

“The prevalence of IBD in the United States has been gradually increasing over the last decade, and thus the burden of caring for IBD is likely to increase as life expectancy increases,” said co-principal investigator Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo, PhD, senior vice president, Translational Research and IBD Ventures, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

These data provide “an initial step toward optimizing health care resources allocation and improving care of individuals with IBD,” said Manasi Agrawal, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

For the federally funded study, researchers pooled data from commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid insurance plans to derive a population-based estimate of the incidence and prevalence of IBD throughout the United States.

“In essence, we consider this to be the most extensive study of the incidence and prevalence of IBD in the United States based on physician-diagnosed IBD, which is representative of nearly the entire U.S. population with health insurance,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Trends identified

Key findings from the study include the following.

• The age- and sex-standardized incidence of IBD was 10.9 per 100,000 person years.
• The incidence of IBD peaks in the third decade of life, decreases to a relatively stable level across the fourth to eighth decades, and declines further beyond age 80.
• Ulcerative colitis is slightly more common than Crohn’s disease in most age groups, except in children, among whom this trend is reversed.
• The adjusted prevalence data show that IBD has been diagnosed in more than 0.7% of Americans, with 721 cases per 100,000, or nearly 1 in 100.
• Historically, IBD was slightly more common in men. Now it’s slightly more common in adult women and male children.
• IBD prevalence is highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western region of the United States.
• The overall prevalence of IBD increased gradually from 2011 to 2020.

“Environmental variables, such as ultra-processed foods, pollution, and urbanization, to name a few, are implicated in IBD risk. Shifts in our modern environment and improving diagnostics may be two reasons why we see rising trends in IBD,” said Dr. Agrawal, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
 

Prevalence highest among Whites

The data also point to significant differences in prevalence among different racial groups in the United States, with Whites having a rate of IBD that is seven times higher than Blacks, six times higher than Hispanics, and 21 times higher than Asians.

The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in Whites, 504 in Blacks, 403 in Asians, and 458 in Hispanics.

“It’s important to note that the reasons for ethnic disparities in IBD prevalence are complex and multifactorial, and further research is needed to better understand the specific mechanisms underlying these disparities,” said Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.

Factors that could contribute to this disparity include genetic and environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, health care disparities, differences in disease awareness and reporting, and underdiagnosis in some populations.

The data suggest a lower prevalence of IBD among children with Medicaid insurance, “which underscores the need for further investigation into the influence of social determinants of health on IBD care,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Insights important for planning

Because of the fragmented nature of the health care system, it’s been challenging to get an accurate estimate of how many patients in the United States have IBD, said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The authors and involved organizations are to be fully complemented on this really ambitious and important study. Having an idea of how common IBD is and how it is likely to increase in prevalence is important for resource planning for organizations and health care systems,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in the study.

Although IBD incidence and prevalence is lower in non-White populations, there is still a “sizeable burden of IBD in those groups, and it’s important to understand the implications of that in terms of disease biology, treatment availability, disparities, and access to care,” he added.

“With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence, it is also important to understand that the ‘face of IBD’ in the coming decades may be different than what we traditionally have estimated it to be. This is also important to incorporate in decision-making,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Funding for the study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo, Dr. Agrawal, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan have declared no relevant disclosures.

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

A comprehensive new analysis estimates that 2.4 million Americans have been diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and up to 56,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

“The prevalence of IBD in the United States has been gradually increasing over the last decade, and thus the burden of caring for IBD is likely to increase as life expectancy increases,” said co-principal investigator Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo, PhD, senior vice president, Translational Research and IBD Ventures, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

These data provide “an initial step toward optimizing health care resources allocation and improving care of individuals with IBD,” said Manasi Agrawal, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

For the federally funded study, researchers pooled data from commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid insurance plans to derive a population-based estimate of the incidence and prevalence of IBD throughout the United States.

“In essence, we consider this to be the most extensive study of the incidence and prevalence of IBD in the United States based on physician-diagnosed IBD, which is representative of nearly the entire U.S. population with health insurance,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Trends identified

Key findings from the study include the following.

• The age- and sex-standardized incidence of IBD was 10.9 per 100,000 person years.
• The incidence of IBD peaks in the third decade of life, decreases to a relatively stable level across the fourth to eighth decades, and declines further beyond age 80.
• Ulcerative colitis is slightly more common than Crohn’s disease in most age groups, except in children, among whom this trend is reversed.
• The adjusted prevalence data show that IBD has been diagnosed in more than 0.7% of Americans, with 721 cases per 100,000, or nearly 1 in 100.
• Historically, IBD was slightly more common in men. Now it’s slightly more common in adult women and male children.
• IBD prevalence is highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western region of the United States.
• The overall prevalence of IBD increased gradually from 2011 to 2020.

“Environmental variables, such as ultra-processed foods, pollution, and urbanization, to name a few, are implicated in IBD risk. Shifts in our modern environment and improving diagnostics may be two reasons why we see rising trends in IBD,” said Dr. Agrawal, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
 

Prevalence highest among Whites

The data also point to significant differences in prevalence among different racial groups in the United States, with Whites having a rate of IBD that is seven times higher than Blacks, six times higher than Hispanics, and 21 times higher than Asians.

The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in Whites, 504 in Blacks, 403 in Asians, and 458 in Hispanics.

“It’s important to note that the reasons for ethnic disparities in IBD prevalence are complex and multifactorial, and further research is needed to better understand the specific mechanisms underlying these disparities,” said Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.

Factors that could contribute to this disparity include genetic and environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, health care disparities, differences in disease awareness and reporting, and underdiagnosis in some populations.

The data suggest a lower prevalence of IBD among children with Medicaid insurance, “which underscores the need for further investigation into the influence of social determinants of health on IBD care,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Insights important for planning

Because of the fragmented nature of the health care system, it’s been challenging to get an accurate estimate of how many patients in the United States have IBD, said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The authors and involved organizations are to be fully complemented on this really ambitious and important study. Having an idea of how common IBD is and how it is likely to increase in prevalence is important for resource planning for organizations and health care systems,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in the study.

Although IBD incidence and prevalence is lower in non-White populations, there is still a “sizeable burden of IBD in those groups, and it’s important to understand the implications of that in terms of disease biology, treatment availability, disparities, and access to care,” he added.

“With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence, it is also important to understand that the ‘face of IBD’ in the coming decades may be different than what we traditionally have estimated it to be. This is also important to incorporate in decision-making,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Funding for the study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo, Dr. Agrawal, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan have declared no relevant disclosures.

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

A comprehensive new analysis estimates that 2.4 million Americans have been diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and up to 56,000 new cases are diagnosed each year.

“The prevalence of IBD in the United States has been gradually increasing over the last decade, and thus the burden of caring for IBD is likely to increase as life expectancy increases,” said co-principal investigator Andrés Hurtado-Lorenzo, PhD, senior vice president, Translational Research and IBD Ventures, Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

These data provide “an initial step toward optimizing health care resources allocation and improving care of individuals with IBD,” said Manasi Agrawal, MD, a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

For the federally funded study, researchers pooled data from commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid insurance plans to derive a population-based estimate of the incidence and prevalence of IBD throughout the United States.

“In essence, we consider this to be the most extensive study of the incidence and prevalence of IBD in the United States based on physician-diagnosed IBD, which is representative of nearly the entire U.S. population with health insurance,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Trends identified

Key findings from the study include the following.

• The age- and sex-standardized incidence of IBD was 10.9 per 100,000 person years.
• The incidence of IBD peaks in the third decade of life, decreases to a relatively stable level across the fourth to eighth decades, and declines further beyond age 80.
• Ulcerative colitis is slightly more common than Crohn’s disease in most age groups, except in children, among whom this trend is reversed.
• The adjusted prevalence data show that IBD has been diagnosed in more than 0.7% of Americans, with 721 cases per 100,000, or nearly 1 in 100.
• Historically, IBD was slightly more common in men. Now it’s slightly more common in adult women and male children.
• IBD prevalence is highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western region of the United States.
• The overall prevalence of IBD increased gradually from 2011 to 2020.

“Environmental variables, such as ultra-processed foods, pollution, and urbanization, to name a few, are implicated in IBD risk. Shifts in our modern environment and improving diagnostics may be two reasons why we see rising trends in IBD,” said Dr. Agrawal, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
 

Prevalence highest among Whites

The data also point to significant differences in prevalence among different racial groups in the United States, with Whites having a rate of IBD that is seven times higher than Blacks, six times higher than Hispanics, and 21 times higher than Asians.

The prevalence of IBD per 100,000 population was 812 in Whites, 504 in Blacks, 403 in Asians, and 458 in Hispanics.

“It’s important to note that the reasons for ethnic disparities in IBD prevalence are complex and multifactorial, and further research is needed to better understand the specific mechanisms underlying these disparities,” said Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.

Factors that could contribute to this disparity include genetic and environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, health care disparities, differences in disease awareness and reporting, and underdiagnosis in some populations.

The data suggest a lower prevalence of IBD among children with Medicaid insurance, “which underscores the need for further investigation into the influence of social determinants of health on IBD care,” Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo said.
 

Insights important for planning

Because of the fragmented nature of the health care system, it’s been challenging to get an accurate estimate of how many patients in the United States have IBD, said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“The authors and involved organizations are to be fully complemented on this really ambitious and important study. Having an idea of how common IBD is and how it is likely to increase in prevalence is important for resource planning for organizations and health care systems,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in the study.

Although IBD incidence and prevalence is lower in non-White populations, there is still a “sizeable burden of IBD in those groups, and it’s important to understand the implications of that in terms of disease biology, treatment availability, disparities, and access to care,” he added.

“With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence, it is also important to understand that the ‘face of IBD’ in the coming decades may be different than what we traditionally have estimated it to be. This is also important to incorporate in decision-making,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Funding for the study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Hurtado-Lorenzo, Dr. Agrawal, and Dr. Ananthakrishnan have declared no relevant disclosures.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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

One of the most controversial issues today is whether a physician should be permitted, or even obligated, to assist patients with a terminal or incurable illness to end their life – a process known as medical assistance in dying (MAID) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS.)

Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.

However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.

A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”

Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
 

Cognitive distortion or objective reality?

Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.

But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.

A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”

Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”

“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”

Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”

Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
 

“Enormous suffering”

One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.

But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”

The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”

One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”

Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”

Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”

A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.

“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”

However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
 

Another form of eugenics?

Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.

“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”

Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.

A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”

Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”

Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.

Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
 

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