Conference Coverage

COPENHAGEN — The largest and perhaps most rigorous study to demonstrate an association between the presence of comorbidities and accelerated progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) is sufficiently compelling that both the study author and an independent expert maintained clinical practice should be adjusted.

Even while acknowledging that “it is hard to make causative statements” on the basis of these types of data, the findings are sufficiently compelling to suggest that comorbidities “should be a pressing concern” in MS management, according to Amber Salter, PhD, an associate professor of biostatistics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.

The strong association in this meta-analysis, presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting, were drawn from 15 multicenter phase 3 treatment trials with 16,794 participants followed for at least 2 years, Dr. Salter reported. Her data were published simultaneously in JAMA Neurology.

“One of the strengths of this study is that the data on comorbidities were collected prospectively as part of these trials,” explained Mark S. Freedman, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Center at Ottawa Hospital in Canada. He agreed with Dr. Salter that it is reasonable to apply these findings to clinical practice given their consistency with numerous other studies and the value of what he termed as “a holistic approach” to improving outcomes in MS.
 

Meta-Analysis Avoids Weaknesses of Previous Data

There are many potential weaknesses of past observational studies that the authors of this meta-analysis hoped to avoid. These include the possibility that MS patients with comorbidities might be less likely to take or adhere to disease-modifying therapies (DMT) or that comorbidity burden might masquerade or be misinterpreted as MS progression. By employing data from phase 3 DMT trials, Dr. Salter maintained that prospectively collected data monitored carefully over an extended follow-up allows the impact of comorbidities on outcome to be evaluated in a more controlled fashion.

Dr. Freedman liked the design of this study, but he admitted that he was surprised by the result.

“Phase 3 trials typically include exclusion criteria for significant comorbidities, so I did not think they would be able to show any meaningful differences,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.

For the main outcome of evidence of disease activity (EDA), defined as confirmed disability worsening measured with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), relapse activity, or any new or enlarging lesions on MRI, the differences reached significance even after adjustments for multiple potentially confounding factors.
 

MS Activity Increases Significantly with More Comorbidities

Compared with no comorbidity, the presence of three or more comorbidities were associated with a significant 14% increase in the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of EDA (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28), Dr. Salter reported. If there were two or more cardiometabolic comorbidities, the risk of EDA was increased 21% (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.37).

The list of comorbidities considered in this study was drawn from the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS. It included numerous cardiometabolic comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease. It also included chronic lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; psychiatric diseases, such as depression and anxiety; and miscellaneous autoimmune conditions.

The number of comorbidities was categorized for analysis as zero, one, two, or three or more. However, Dr. Salter acknowledged that these phase 3 trials did include comorbidity exclusion criteria. In fact, severe forms of most of these comorbidities were exclusion criteria in at least some studies. Yet, the prevalence of one or more comorbidities was still 45.4% in the total population from this meta-analysis.

By themselves alone, ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.63), cerebrovascular disease (aHR, 1.70) and at least one psychiatric disorder (aHR, 1.14) were all significant for increased MS activity at the end of 2 years by a 95% confidence interval that did not cross the line of unity.

When the EDA endpoints were evaluated individually, not even three or more comorbidities was associated with an increased rate of active lesions on MRI at the end of follow-up, but two or more and three or more comorbidities were associated with a significantly increased risk of disability worsening (aHR, 1.16 and aHR, 1.31, respectively) and relapse (aHR, 1.16 for both).
 

An Underestimation of Associations?

Prospective trials are still needed to show that treating comorbidities improves outcome in MS, but randomization will be problematic if it means withholding treatment for conditions with risks independent of MS, Dr. Salter said. Although the data from this analysis did not permit an analysis of how relative severity of comorbidities affected MS outcome, she reiterated that most patients with severe comorbidities were likely excluded from inclusion in the studies anyway.

“We think that we are probably seeing an underestimation of an associations between comorbidity and increased MS activity,” Dr. Salter said. While she reported that confounding cannot be ruled out, the robust associations identified in a meta-analysis “limit the possibility of bias or chance findings.”

Asked if the message that clinicians should treat comorbidities to reduce MS activity is a reasonable conclusion in the absence of proof that treatment is beneficial, Dr. Freedman looked both to the body of evidence and to the common sense behind the recommendation.

Basically, Dr. Freedman believes that comorbidities should be addressed routinely and rigorously even if there was no evidence that they improve MS outcome. These data provide just one other source of support for a practice that should be conducted anyway.

Dr. Salter reported financial relationships with Abata Therapeutics, Gryphon Bio, and Owl Therapeutics. Dr. Freedman reported financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies.

COPENHAGEN — The largest and perhaps most rigorous study to demonstrate an association between the presence of comorbidities and accelerated progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) is sufficiently compelling that both the study author and an independent expert maintained clinical practice should be adjusted.

Even while acknowledging that “it is hard to make causative statements” on the basis of these types of data, the findings are sufficiently compelling to suggest that comorbidities “should be a pressing concern” in MS management, according to Amber Salter, PhD, an associate professor of biostatistics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.

The strong association in this meta-analysis, presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting, were drawn from 15 multicenter phase 3 treatment trials with 16,794 participants followed for at least 2 years, Dr. Salter reported. Her data were published simultaneously in JAMA Neurology.

“One of the strengths of this study is that the data on comorbidities were collected prospectively as part of these trials,” explained Mark S. Freedman, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Center at Ottawa Hospital in Canada. He agreed with Dr. Salter that it is reasonable to apply these findings to clinical practice given their consistency with numerous other studies and the value of what he termed as “a holistic approach” to improving outcomes in MS.
 

Meta-Analysis Avoids Weaknesses of Previous Data

There are many potential weaknesses of past observational studies that the authors of this meta-analysis hoped to avoid. These include the possibility that MS patients with comorbidities might be less likely to take or adhere to disease-modifying therapies (DMT) or that comorbidity burden might masquerade or be misinterpreted as MS progression. By employing data from phase 3 DMT trials, Dr. Salter maintained that prospectively collected data monitored carefully over an extended follow-up allows the impact of comorbidities on outcome to be evaluated in a more controlled fashion.

Dr. Freedman liked the design of this study, but he admitted that he was surprised by the result.

“Phase 3 trials typically include exclusion criteria for significant comorbidities, so I did not think they would be able to show any meaningful differences,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.

For the main outcome of evidence of disease activity (EDA), defined as confirmed disability worsening measured with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), relapse activity, or any new or enlarging lesions on MRI, the differences reached significance even after adjustments for multiple potentially confounding factors.
 

MS Activity Increases Significantly with More Comorbidities

Compared with no comorbidity, the presence of three or more comorbidities were associated with a significant 14% increase in the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of EDA (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28), Dr. Salter reported. If there were two or more cardiometabolic comorbidities, the risk of EDA was increased 21% (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.37).

The list of comorbidities considered in this study was drawn from the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS. It included numerous cardiometabolic comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease. It also included chronic lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; psychiatric diseases, such as depression and anxiety; and miscellaneous autoimmune conditions.

The number of comorbidities was categorized for analysis as zero, one, two, or three or more. However, Dr. Salter acknowledged that these phase 3 trials did include comorbidity exclusion criteria. In fact, severe forms of most of these comorbidities were exclusion criteria in at least some studies. Yet, the prevalence of one or more comorbidities was still 45.4% in the total population from this meta-analysis.

By themselves alone, ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.63), cerebrovascular disease (aHR, 1.70) and at least one psychiatric disorder (aHR, 1.14) were all significant for increased MS activity at the end of 2 years by a 95% confidence interval that did not cross the line of unity.

When the EDA endpoints were evaluated individually, not even three or more comorbidities was associated with an increased rate of active lesions on MRI at the end of follow-up, but two or more and three or more comorbidities were associated with a significantly increased risk of disability worsening (aHR, 1.16 and aHR, 1.31, respectively) and relapse (aHR, 1.16 for both).
 

An Underestimation of Associations?

Prospective trials are still needed to show that treating comorbidities improves outcome in MS, but randomization will be problematic if it means withholding treatment for conditions with risks independent of MS, Dr. Salter said. Although the data from this analysis did not permit an analysis of how relative severity of comorbidities affected MS outcome, she reiterated that most patients with severe comorbidities were likely excluded from inclusion in the studies anyway.

“We think that we are probably seeing an underestimation of an associations between comorbidity and increased MS activity,” Dr. Salter said. While she reported that confounding cannot be ruled out, the robust associations identified in a meta-analysis “limit the possibility of bias or chance findings.”

Asked if the message that clinicians should treat comorbidities to reduce MS activity is a reasonable conclusion in the absence of proof that treatment is beneficial, Dr. Freedman looked both to the body of evidence and to the common sense behind the recommendation.

Basically, Dr. Freedman believes that comorbidities should be addressed routinely and rigorously even if there was no evidence that they improve MS outcome. These data provide just one other source of support for a practice that should be conducted anyway.

Dr. Salter reported financial relationships with Abata Therapeutics, Gryphon Bio, and Owl Therapeutics. Dr. Freedman reported financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies.

COPENHAGEN — The largest and perhaps most rigorous study to demonstrate an association between the presence of comorbidities and accelerated progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) is sufficiently compelling that both the study author and an independent expert maintained clinical practice should be adjusted.

Even while acknowledging that “it is hard to make causative statements” on the basis of these types of data, the findings are sufficiently compelling to suggest that comorbidities “should be a pressing concern” in MS management, according to Amber Salter, PhD, an associate professor of biostatistics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas.

The strong association in this meta-analysis, presented at the 2024 ECTRIMS annual meeting, were drawn from 15 multicenter phase 3 treatment trials with 16,794 participants followed for at least 2 years, Dr. Salter reported. Her data were published simultaneously in JAMA Neurology.

“One of the strengths of this study is that the data on comorbidities were collected prospectively as part of these trials,” explained Mark S. Freedman, MD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Research Center at Ottawa Hospital in Canada. He agreed with Dr. Salter that it is reasonable to apply these findings to clinical practice given their consistency with numerous other studies and the value of what he termed as “a holistic approach” to improving outcomes in MS.
 

Meta-Analysis Avoids Weaknesses of Previous Data

There are many potential weaknesses of past observational studies that the authors of this meta-analysis hoped to avoid. These include the possibility that MS patients with comorbidities might be less likely to take or adhere to disease-modifying therapies (DMT) or that comorbidity burden might masquerade or be misinterpreted as MS progression. By employing data from phase 3 DMT trials, Dr. Salter maintained that prospectively collected data monitored carefully over an extended follow-up allows the impact of comorbidities on outcome to be evaluated in a more controlled fashion.

Dr. Freedman liked the design of this study, but he admitted that he was surprised by the result.

“Phase 3 trials typically include exclusion criteria for significant comorbidities, so I did not think they would be able to show any meaningful differences,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.

For the main outcome of evidence of disease activity (EDA), defined as confirmed disability worsening measured with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), relapse activity, or any new or enlarging lesions on MRI, the differences reached significance even after adjustments for multiple potentially confounding factors.
 

MS Activity Increases Significantly with More Comorbidities

Compared with no comorbidity, the presence of three or more comorbidities were associated with a significant 14% increase in the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of EDA (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.28), Dr. Salter reported. If there were two or more cardiometabolic comorbidities, the risk of EDA was increased 21% (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.37).

The list of comorbidities considered in this study was drawn from the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS. It included numerous cardiometabolic comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease. It also included chronic lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; psychiatric diseases, such as depression and anxiety; and miscellaneous autoimmune conditions.

The number of comorbidities was categorized for analysis as zero, one, two, or three or more. However, Dr. Salter acknowledged that these phase 3 trials did include comorbidity exclusion criteria. In fact, severe forms of most of these comorbidities were exclusion criteria in at least some studies. Yet, the prevalence of one or more comorbidities was still 45.4% in the total population from this meta-analysis.

By themselves alone, ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.63), cerebrovascular disease (aHR, 1.70) and at least one psychiatric disorder (aHR, 1.14) were all significant for increased MS activity at the end of 2 years by a 95% confidence interval that did not cross the line of unity.

When the EDA endpoints were evaluated individually, not even three or more comorbidities was associated with an increased rate of active lesions on MRI at the end of follow-up, but two or more and three or more comorbidities were associated with a significantly increased risk of disability worsening (aHR, 1.16 and aHR, 1.31, respectively) and relapse (aHR, 1.16 for both).
 

An Underestimation of Associations?

Prospective trials are still needed to show that treating comorbidities improves outcome in MS, but randomization will be problematic if it means withholding treatment for conditions with risks independent of MS, Dr. Salter said. Although the data from this analysis did not permit an analysis of how relative severity of comorbidities affected MS outcome, she reiterated that most patients with severe comorbidities were likely excluded from inclusion in the studies anyway.

“We think that we are probably seeing an underestimation of an associations between comorbidity and increased MS activity,” Dr. Salter said. While she reported that confounding cannot be ruled out, the robust associations identified in a meta-analysis “limit the possibility of bias or chance findings.”

Asked if the message that clinicians should treat comorbidities to reduce MS activity is a reasonable conclusion in the absence of proof that treatment is beneficial, Dr. Freedman looked both to the body of evidence and to the common sense behind the recommendation.

Basically, Dr. Freedman believes that comorbidities should be addressed routinely and rigorously even if there was no evidence that they improve MS outcome. These data provide just one other source of support for a practice that should be conducted anyway.

Dr. Salter reported financial relationships with Abata Therapeutics, Gryphon Bio, and Owl Therapeutics. Dr. Freedman reported financial relationships with more than 10 pharmaceutical companies.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — When Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, began reviewing responses to an exploratory survey she and her colleagues created on dermatologists’ use of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in clinical practice, she was both surprised and alarmed.

Of the 134 respondents who completed the survey, 87 (65%) reported using LLMs in a clinical setting. Of those 87 respondents, 17 (20%) used LMMs daily, 28 (32%) weekly, 5 (6%) monthly, and 37 (43%) rarely. That represents “pretty significant usage,” Dr. Daneshjou, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

courtesy Dr. Roxana Daneshjou

Most of the respondents reported using LLMs for patient care (79%), followed by administrative tasks (74%), medical records (43%), and education (18%), “which can be problematic,” she said. “These models are not appropriate to use for patient care.”

When asked about their thoughts on the accuracy of LLMs, 58% of respondents deemed them to be “somewhat accurate” and 7% viewed them as “extremely accurate.”

The overall survey responses raise concern because LLMs “are not trained for accuracy; they are trained initially as a next-word predictor on large bodies of tech data,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “LLMs are already being implemented but have the potential to cause harm and bias, and I believe they will if we implement them the way things are rolling out right now. I don’t understand why we’re implementing something without any clinical trial or showing that it improves care before we throw untested technology into our healthcare system.”

Meanwhile, Epic and Microsoft are collaborating to bring AI technology to electronic health records, she said, and Epic is building more than 100 new AI features for physicians and patients. “I think it’s important for every physician and trainee to understand what is going on in the realm of AI,” said Dr. Daneshjou, who is an associate editor for the monthly journal NEJM AI. “Be involved in the conversation because we are the clinical experts, and a lot of people making decisions and building tools do not have the clinical expertise.”

To further illustrate her concerns, Dr. Daneshjou referenced a red teaming event she and her colleagues held with computer scientists, biomedical data scientists, engineers, and physicians across multiple specialties to identify issues related to safety, bias, factual errors, and/or security issues in GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 with internet. The goal was to mimic clinical health scenarios, ask the LLM to respond, and have the team members review the accuracy of LLM responses.

The participants found that nearly 20% of LLM responses were inappropriate. For example, in one task, an LLM was asked to calculate a RegiSCAR score for Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms for a patient, but the response included an incorrect score for eosinophilia. “That’s why these tools can be so dangerous because you’re reading along and everything seems right, but there might be something so minor that can impact patient care and you might miss it,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

On a related note, she advised against dermatologists uploading images into GPT-4 Vision, an LLM that can analyze images and provide textual responses to questions about them, and she recommends not using GPT-4 Vision for any diagnostic support. At this time, “GPT-4 Vision overcalls malignancies, and the specificity and sensitivity are not very good,” she explained.

Dr. Daneshjou disclosed that she has served as an adviser to MDalgorithms and Revea and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, L’Oréal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA and research funding from UCB.

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — When Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, began reviewing responses to an exploratory survey she and her colleagues created on dermatologists’ use of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in clinical practice, she was both surprised and alarmed.

Of the 134 respondents who completed the survey, 87 (65%) reported using LLMs in a clinical setting. Of those 87 respondents, 17 (20%) used LMMs daily, 28 (32%) weekly, 5 (6%) monthly, and 37 (43%) rarely. That represents “pretty significant usage,” Dr. Daneshjou, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

courtesy Dr. Roxana Daneshjou

Most of the respondents reported using LLMs for patient care (79%), followed by administrative tasks (74%), medical records (43%), and education (18%), “which can be problematic,” she said. “These models are not appropriate to use for patient care.”

When asked about their thoughts on the accuracy of LLMs, 58% of respondents deemed them to be “somewhat accurate” and 7% viewed them as “extremely accurate.”

The overall survey responses raise concern because LLMs “are not trained for accuracy; they are trained initially as a next-word predictor on large bodies of tech data,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “LLMs are already being implemented but have the potential to cause harm and bias, and I believe they will if we implement them the way things are rolling out right now. I don’t understand why we’re implementing something without any clinical trial or showing that it improves care before we throw untested technology into our healthcare system.”

Meanwhile, Epic and Microsoft are collaborating to bring AI technology to electronic health records, she said, and Epic is building more than 100 new AI features for physicians and patients. “I think it’s important for every physician and trainee to understand what is going on in the realm of AI,” said Dr. Daneshjou, who is an associate editor for the monthly journal NEJM AI. “Be involved in the conversation because we are the clinical experts, and a lot of people making decisions and building tools do not have the clinical expertise.”

To further illustrate her concerns, Dr. Daneshjou referenced a red teaming event she and her colleagues held with computer scientists, biomedical data scientists, engineers, and physicians across multiple specialties to identify issues related to safety, bias, factual errors, and/or security issues in GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 with internet. The goal was to mimic clinical health scenarios, ask the LLM to respond, and have the team members review the accuracy of LLM responses.

The participants found that nearly 20% of LLM responses were inappropriate. For example, in one task, an LLM was asked to calculate a RegiSCAR score for Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms for a patient, but the response included an incorrect score for eosinophilia. “That’s why these tools can be so dangerous because you’re reading along and everything seems right, but there might be something so minor that can impact patient care and you might miss it,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

On a related note, she advised against dermatologists uploading images into GPT-4 Vision, an LLM that can analyze images and provide textual responses to questions about them, and she recommends not using GPT-4 Vision for any diagnostic support. At this time, “GPT-4 Vision overcalls malignancies, and the specificity and sensitivity are not very good,” she explained.

Dr. Daneshjou disclosed that she has served as an adviser to MDalgorithms and Revea and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, L’Oréal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA and research funding from UCB.

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. — When Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, began reviewing responses to an exploratory survey she and her colleagues created on dermatologists’ use of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in clinical practice, she was both surprised and alarmed.

Of the 134 respondents who completed the survey, 87 (65%) reported using LLMs in a clinical setting. Of those 87 respondents, 17 (20%) used LMMs daily, 28 (32%) weekly, 5 (6%) monthly, and 37 (43%) rarely. That represents “pretty significant usage,” Dr. Daneshjou, assistant professor of biomedical data science and dermatology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

courtesy Dr. Roxana Daneshjou

Most of the respondents reported using LLMs for patient care (79%), followed by administrative tasks (74%), medical records (43%), and education (18%), “which can be problematic,” she said. “These models are not appropriate to use for patient care.”

When asked about their thoughts on the accuracy of LLMs, 58% of respondents deemed them to be “somewhat accurate” and 7% viewed them as “extremely accurate.”

The overall survey responses raise concern because LLMs “are not trained for accuracy; they are trained initially as a next-word predictor on large bodies of tech data,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “LLMs are already being implemented but have the potential to cause harm and bias, and I believe they will if we implement them the way things are rolling out right now. I don’t understand why we’re implementing something without any clinical trial or showing that it improves care before we throw untested technology into our healthcare system.”

Meanwhile, Epic and Microsoft are collaborating to bring AI technology to electronic health records, she said, and Epic is building more than 100 new AI features for physicians and patients. “I think it’s important for every physician and trainee to understand what is going on in the realm of AI,” said Dr. Daneshjou, who is an associate editor for the monthly journal NEJM AI. “Be involved in the conversation because we are the clinical experts, and a lot of people making decisions and building tools do not have the clinical expertise.”

To further illustrate her concerns, Dr. Daneshjou referenced a red teaming event she and her colleagues held with computer scientists, biomedical data scientists, engineers, and physicians across multiple specialties to identify issues related to safety, bias, factual errors, and/or security issues in GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4 with internet. The goal was to mimic clinical health scenarios, ask the LLM to respond, and have the team members review the accuracy of LLM responses.

The participants found that nearly 20% of LLM responses were inappropriate. For example, in one task, an LLM was asked to calculate a RegiSCAR score for Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms for a patient, but the response included an incorrect score for eosinophilia. “That’s why these tools can be so dangerous because you’re reading along and everything seems right, but there might be something so minor that can impact patient care and you might miss it,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

On a related note, she advised against dermatologists uploading images into GPT-4 Vision, an LLM that can analyze images and provide textual responses to questions about them, and she recommends not using GPT-4 Vision for any diagnostic support. At this time, “GPT-4 Vision overcalls malignancies, and the specificity and sensitivity are not very good,” she explained.

Dr. Daneshjou disclosed that she has served as an adviser to MDalgorithms and Revea and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, L’Oréal, Frazier Healthcare Partners, and DWA and research funding from UCB.

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

CHICAGO — Use of CO₂ lasers and similar “energy-based” treatments result in little to no benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, according to research presented at the The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago on September 12.

“There was a concern that menopausal women are being targeted for treatments that may not have a lot of benefit and might have significant harms,” Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization. While she was not surprised to find little evidence of benefit, “we were a little bit surprised that we also didn’t find significant evidence of harms.”

The study was unable to evaluate the potential for financial harms, but Dr. Danan noted that these therapies are often expensive and not typically covered by insurance. The treatments appear to be used primarily in private practice, she said, while “most academic clinicians were not familiar with these and do not use these lasers.”

The American Urological Association had requested the review, Dr. Danan said, “to inform clinical guidelines that they could put out for practitioners about treating genital urinary syndrome from menopause.” Yet the evidence available remains slim. “There’s a lot of outcomes that were not looked at by most of these [trials], or they were looked at in a way that we couldn’t separate out,” she said.

Kamalini Das, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research, was surprised by the findings because studies to date have been variable, “but since this looks at multiple studies and they find no benefits, I would take these results as more significant than any of the small studies,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Das said she has patients who ask about using these therapies and have had them done. “So far, I’ve told them the jury is out on whether it will help or not, that there are some studies that say they’re beneficial and some studies that they’re not,” Dr. Das said.

But this new review changes what she will tell patients going forward, she said. “This is a good study because it consolidates lots of little studies, so I think I would use this to say, looking at all the studies together, this treatment is not beneficial.”

GSM occurs due to the body’s reduced production of estrogen and affects anywhere from 27% to 84% of postmenopausal women. It can involve a constellation of symptoms ranging from vaginal discomfort and irritation to painful urination or intercourse. Typical recommended treatments for GSM include systemic hormone therapy, localized hormonal treatments such as vaginal estrogen or dehydroepiandrosterone, nonhormonal creams and moisturizers, and the prescription drug ospemifene.

Most of these have been found effective, according to a recent systematic review  Dr. Danan published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that this news organization covered. But recent years have also seen a rapid increase in interest and the availability of energy-based treatments for GSM, such as CO₂ laser and radiofrequency interventions, particularly for those who cannot or do not want to use hormonal treatments. The idea behind these newer therapies is that they “heat tissue to cause a denaturation of collagen fibers and induce a wound-healing response,” with the aim of “enhancement of vaginal elasticity, restoration of premenopausal epithelial function, and symptom improvement,” the authors wrote.

Evidence has been scant and uneven for the safety and effectiveness of these treatments, and they have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The agency issued a warning in 2018 with remarks from then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb that the “products have serious risks and don’t have adequate evidence to support their use for these purposes.”

Much of the evidence has focused on CO₂ lasers instead of other energy-based treatments, however, and a raft of new studies have been published on these interventions in the past 2 years. Dr. Danan and colleagues, therefore, assessed the most current state of the research with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies with control groups published through December 11, 2023.

Included studies needed to evaluate an energy-based treatment for at least 8 weeks in a minimum of 40 postmenopausal women (20 in each group) who had one or more GSM symptoms. The authors also included nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies with a follow-up of a year or more to assess possible adverse events. The studies also needed to assess at least one of eight core outcomes: Dyspareunia; vulvovaginal dryness; vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation; dysuria; change in most bothersome symptom; treatment satisfaction; adverse events; and distress, bother, or interference associated with genitourinary symptoms.

The authors identified 32 studies, including 16 RCTs, one quasi-RCT, and 15 nonrandomized studies. The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the 10 RCTs and one quasi-RCT that were rated as having low to moderate risk for bias.

Most of these studies assessed CO₂ lasers alone, while three assessed erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and one looked at CO₂ lasers vs radiofrequency treatments.

The average age of participants ranged from 56 to 64 years, and most trials were in the United States. Results showed that CO₂ lasers led to little or no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life when compared with sham lasers. The CO₂ laser therapy also showed little to no difference compared with vaginal estrogen creams for dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life.

Most CO₂ laser studies reported on most outcomes, but the Er:YAG studies tended to report only on quality of life and/or one or two other outcomes. The radiofrequency study only assessed dyspareunia and quality of life.

“Treatment effects on other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcomes are very uncertain,” the authors reported. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported based on 15 studies, including the additional non-RCTs that had follow-up for at least a year.

“There are case reports and other types of studies that have shown some bad outcomes using laser therapies, and we really wanted to be expansive and include anything, especially because this is such a new treatment and all these trials were in the last couple of years,” Dr. Danan said. 

The review was limited by inconsistent or nonvalidated outcome reporting in the studies as well as small populations and short follow-up, typically less than 3 months.

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Danan and Dr. Das had no disclosures.
 

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

CHICAGO — Use of CO₂ lasers and similar “energy-based” treatments result in little to no benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, according to research presented at the The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago on September 12.

“There was a concern that menopausal women are being targeted for treatments that may not have a lot of benefit and might have significant harms,” Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization. While she was not surprised to find little evidence of benefit, “we were a little bit surprised that we also didn’t find significant evidence of harms.”

The study was unable to evaluate the potential for financial harms, but Dr. Danan noted that these therapies are often expensive and not typically covered by insurance. The treatments appear to be used primarily in private practice, she said, while “most academic clinicians were not familiar with these and do not use these lasers.”

The American Urological Association had requested the review, Dr. Danan said, “to inform clinical guidelines that they could put out for practitioners about treating genital urinary syndrome from menopause.” Yet the evidence available remains slim. “There’s a lot of outcomes that were not looked at by most of these [trials], or they were looked at in a way that we couldn’t separate out,” she said.

Kamalini Das, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research, was surprised by the findings because studies to date have been variable, “but since this looks at multiple studies and they find no benefits, I would take these results as more significant than any of the small studies,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Das said she has patients who ask about using these therapies and have had them done. “So far, I’ve told them the jury is out on whether it will help or not, that there are some studies that say they’re beneficial and some studies that they’re not,” Dr. Das said.

But this new review changes what she will tell patients going forward, she said. “This is a good study because it consolidates lots of little studies, so I think I would use this to say, looking at all the studies together, this treatment is not beneficial.”

GSM occurs due to the body’s reduced production of estrogen and affects anywhere from 27% to 84% of postmenopausal women. It can involve a constellation of symptoms ranging from vaginal discomfort and irritation to painful urination or intercourse. Typical recommended treatments for GSM include systemic hormone therapy, localized hormonal treatments such as vaginal estrogen or dehydroepiandrosterone, nonhormonal creams and moisturizers, and the prescription drug ospemifene.

Most of these have been found effective, according to a recent systematic review  Dr. Danan published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that this news organization covered. But recent years have also seen a rapid increase in interest and the availability of energy-based treatments for GSM, such as CO₂ laser and radiofrequency interventions, particularly for those who cannot or do not want to use hormonal treatments. The idea behind these newer therapies is that they “heat tissue to cause a denaturation of collagen fibers and induce a wound-healing response,” with the aim of “enhancement of vaginal elasticity, restoration of premenopausal epithelial function, and symptom improvement,” the authors wrote.

Evidence has been scant and uneven for the safety and effectiveness of these treatments, and they have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The agency issued a warning in 2018 with remarks from then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb that the “products have serious risks and don’t have adequate evidence to support their use for these purposes.”

Much of the evidence has focused on CO₂ lasers instead of other energy-based treatments, however, and a raft of new studies have been published on these interventions in the past 2 years. Dr. Danan and colleagues, therefore, assessed the most current state of the research with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies with control groups published through December 11, 2023.

Included studies needed to evaluate an energy-based treatment for at least 8 weeks in a minimum of 40 postmenopausal women (20 in each group) who had one or more GSM symptoms. The authors also included nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies with a follow-up of a year or more to assess possible adverse events. The studies also needed to assess at least one of eight core outcomes: Dyspareunia; vulvovaginal dryness; vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation; dysuria; change in most bothersome symptom; treatment satisfaction; adverse events; and distress, bother, or interference associated with genitourinary symptoms.

The authors identified 32 studies, including 16 RCTs, one quasi-RCT, and 15 nonrandomized studies. The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the 10 RCTs and one quasi-RCT that were rated as having low to moderate risk for bias.

Most of these studies assessed CO₂ lasers alone, while three assessed erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and one looked at CO₂ lasers vs radiofrequency treatments.

The average age of participants ranged from 56 to 64 years, and most trials were in the United States. Results showed that CO₂ lasers led to little or no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life when compared with sham lasers. The CO₂ laser therapy also showed little to no difference compared with vaginal estrogen creams for dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life.

Most CO₂ laser studies reported on most outcomes, but the Er:YAG studies tended to report only on quality of life and/or one or two other outcomes. The radiofrequency study only assessed dyspareunia and quality of life.

“Treatment effects on other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcomes are very uncertain,” the authors reported. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported based on 15 studies, including the additional non-RCTs that had follow-up for at least a year.

“There are case reports and other types of studies that have shown some bad outcomes using laser therapies, and we really wanted to be expansive and include anything, especially because this is such a new treatment and all these trials were in the last couple of years,” Dr. Danan said. 

The review was limited by inconsistent or nonvalidated outcome reporting in the studies as well as small populations and short follow-up, typically less than 3 months.

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Danan and Dr. Das had no disclosures.
 

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

CHICAGO — Use of CO₂ lasers and similar “energy-based” treatments result in little to no benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms, according to research presented at the The Menopause Society 2024 Annual Meeting in Chicago on September 12.

“There was a concern that menopausal women are being targeted for treatments that may not have a lot of benefit and might have significant harms,” Elisheva Danan, MD, MPH, a physician at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, told this news organization. While she was not surprised to find little evidence of benefit, “we were a little bit surprised that we also didn’t find significant evidence of harms.”

The study was unable to evaluate the potential for financial harms, but Dr. Danan noted that these therapies are often expensive and not typically covered by insurance. The treatments appear to be used primarily in private practice, she said, while “most academic clinicians were not familiar with these and do not use these lasers.”

The American Urological Association had requested the review, Dr. Danan said, “to inform clinical guidelines that they could put out for practitioners about treating genital urinary syndrome from menopause.” Yet the evidence available remains slim. “There’s a lot of outcomes that were not looked at by most of these [trials], or they were looked at in a way that we couldn’t separate out,” she said.

Kamalini Das, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research, was surprised by the findings because studies to date have been variable, “but since this looks at multiple studies and they find no benefits, I would take these results as more significant than any of the small studies,” she told this news organization.

Dr. Das said she has patients who ask about using these therapies and have had them done. “So far, I’ve told them the jury is out on whether it will help or not, that there are some studies that say they’re beneficial and some studies that they’re not,” Dr. Das said.

But this new review changes what she will tell patients going forward, she said. “This is a good study because it consolidates lots of little studies, so I think I would use this to say, looking at all the studies together, this treatment is not beneficial.”

GSM occurs due to the body’s reduced production of estrogen and affects anywhere from 27% to 84% of postmenopausal women. It can involve a constellation of symptoms ranging from vaginal discomfort and irritation to painful urination or intercourse. Typical recommended treatments for GSM include systemic hormone therapy, localized hormonal treatments such as vaginal estrogen or dehydroepiandrosterone, nonhormonal creams and moisturizers, and the prescription drug ospemifene.

Most of these have been found effective, according to a recent systematic review  Dr. Danan published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that this news organization covered. But recent years have also seen a rapid increase in interest and the availability of energy-based treatments for GSM, such as CO₂ laser and radiofrequency interventions, particularly for those who cannot or do not want to use hormonal treatments. The idea behind these newer therapies is that they “heat tissue to cause a denaturation of collagen fibers and induce a wound-healing response,” with the aim of “enhancement of vaginal elasticity, restoration of premenopausal epithelial function, and symptom improvement,” the authors wrote.

Evidence has been scant and uneven for the safety and effectiveness of these treatments, and they have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The agency issued a warning in 2018 with remarks from then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb that the “products have serious risks and don’t have adequate evidence to support their use for these purposes.”

Much of the evidence has focused on CO₂ lasers instead of other energy-based treatments, however, and a raft of new studies have been published on these interventions in the past 2 years. Dr. Danan and colleagues, therefore, assessed the most current state of the research with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies with control groups published through December 11, 2023.

Included studies needed to evaluate an energy-based treatment for at least 8 weeks in a minimum of 40 postmenopausal women (20 in each group) who had one or more GSM symptoms. The authors also included nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies with a follow-up of a year or more to assess possible adverse events. The studies also needed to assess at least one of eight core outcomes: Dyspareunia; vulvovaginal dryness; vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation; dysuria; change in most bothersome symptom; treatment satisfaction; adverse events; and distress, bother, or interference associated with genitourinary symptoms.

The authors identified 32 studies, including 16 RCTs, one quasi-RCT, and 15 nonrandomized studies. The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the 10 RCTs and one quasi-RCT that were rated as having low to moderate risk for bias.

Most of these studies assessed CO₂ lasers alone, while three assessed erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, and one looked at CO₂ lasers vs radiofrequency treatments.

The average age of participants ranged from 56 to 64 years, and most trials were in the United States. Results showed that CO₂ lasers led to little or no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life when compared with sham lasers. The CO₂ laser therapy also showed little to no difference compared with vaginal estrogen creams for dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life.

Most CO₂ laser studies reported on most outcomes, but the Er:YAG studies tended to report only on quality of life and/or one or two other outcomes. The radiofrequency study only assessed dyspareunia and quality of life.

“Treatment effects on other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcomes are very uncertain,” the authors reported. Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported based on 15 studies, including the additional non-RCTs that had follow-up for at least a year.

“There are case reports and other types of studies that have shown some bad outcomes using laser therapies, and we really wanted to be expansive and include anything, especially because this is such a new treatment and all these trials were in the last couple of years,” Dr. Danan said. 

The review was limited by inconsistent or nonvalidated outcome reporting in the studies as well as small populations and short follow-up, typically less than 3 months.

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Danan and Dr. Das had no disclosures.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

SAN DIEGO — Combination therapy with osimertinib and savolitinib could become a novel first-line treatment option for patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results of the phase 2 FLOWERS study.

Compared with EGFR inhibitor osimertinib alone, the combination demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in the objective response rate — the study’s primary endpoint — with a positive trend in progression-free survival and a manageable safety profile.

About 30% patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC fail to respond well to EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), explained Jin-Ji Yang, MD, with Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China, who reported the study results at the annual meeting of the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Data suggested that de novo MET amplification occurs in up to 5% patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, and MET overexpression occurs in up to 15% these patients.

Coexistence of EGFR mutation and MET amplification/overexpression reduces sensitivity to EGFR-TKI therapy “and is likely the mechanism for mediating primary resistance to first-line EGFR-TKI monotherapy,” Dr. Yang explained in her presentation.

Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Savolitinib is a highly selective MET-TKI which has demonstrated antitumor activity in various cancers with MET alterations.

The FLOWERS study is the first to test whether combining the two agents could improve efficacy and overcome MET-driven primary resistance in these patients.

The phase 2 study enrolled 44 treatment-naive patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutant, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; 23 were randomly allocated to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) alone and 21 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus savolitinib (300 mg twice daily).

At a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the objective response rate was 60.9% with osimertinib monotherapy vs 90.5% with combination therapy. The disease control rate was also better with the combination therapy than with monotherapy (95.2% vs 87%).

Median duration of response (not yet mature) was 8.4 months with monotherapy vs 18.6 months with combination therapy.

Preliminary progression-free survival data also showed a trend in favor of combination therapy over monotherapy (a median of 19.3 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.59).

Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and there were no fatal adverse events.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with combination therapy (57.1% vs 8.7%). The most common events with monotherapy were diarrhea (56.5%), rash (52.2%), and pruritus (43.5%) and with dual therapy were rash (52.4%), thrombocytopenia (52.4%), and peripheral edema (42.9%).

The results showed that the combination therapy has the potential to become a first-line treatment option for patients who do not respond well to EGFR-TKIs alone, Dr. Yang said in a press release.

Discussant for the study Paul Paik, MD, thoracic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said this study “adds to data suggesting high MET expression might be a poor prognostic or predictive marker, the outcomes of which are improved with MET inhibition.”

He cautioned, however, that there appears to be “quality of life, side-effect trade-offs with dual MET plus EGFR TKI upfront.”

Dr. Paik said he looks forward to results from FLOWERS on serial circulating tumor DNA and formal androgen receptor testing, which “might aid in further assessing clonality and characterizing MET as a co-driver in this setting.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca China. Dr. Yang had no disclosures. Dr. Paik disclosed relationships with EMD Serono, Bicara, Novartis, and Summit.

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

SAN DIEGO — Combination therapy with osimertinib and savolitinib could become a novel first-line treatment option for patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results of the phase 2 FLOWERS study.

Compared with EGFR inhibitor osimertinib alone, the combination demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in the objective response rate — the study’s primary endpoint — with a positive trend in progression-free survival and a manageable safety profile.

About 30% patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC fail to respond well to EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), explained Jin-Ji Yang, MD, with Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China, who reported the study results at the annual meeting of the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Data suggested that de novo MET amplification occurs in up to 5% patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, and MET overexpression occurs in up to 15% these patients.

Coexistence of EGFR mutation and MET amplification/overexpression reduces sensitivity to EGFR-TKI therapy “and is likely the mechanism for mediating primary resistance to first-line EGFR-TKI monotherapy,” Dr. Yang explained in her presentation.

Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Savolitinib is a highly selective MET-TKI which has demonstrated antitumor activity in various cancers with MET alterations.

The FLOWERS study is the first to test whether combining the two agents could improve efficacy and overcome MET-driven primary resistance in these patients.

The phase 2 study enrolled 44 treatment-naive patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutant, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; 23 were randomly allocated to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) alone and 21 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus savolitinib (300 mg twice daily).

At a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the objective response rate was 60.9% with osimertinib monotherapy vs 90.5% with combination therapy. The disease control rate was also better with the combination therapy than with monotherapy (95.2% vs 87%).

Median duration of response (not yet mature) was 8.4 months with monotherapy vs 18.6 months with combination therapy.

Preliminary progression-free survival data also showed a trend in favor of combination therapy over monotherapy (a median of 19.3 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.59).

Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and there were no fatal adverse events.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with combination therapy (57.1% vs 8.7%). The most common events with monotherapy were diarrhea (56.5%), rash (52.2%), and pruritus (43.5%) and with dual therapy were rash (52.4%), thrombocytopenia (52.4%), and peripheral edema (42.9%).

The results showed that the combination therapy has the potential to become a first-line treatment option for patients who do not respond well to EGFR-TKIs alone, Dr. Yang said in a press release.

Discussant for the study Paul Paik, MD, thoracic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said this study “adds to data suggesting high MET expression might be a poor prognostic or predictive marker, the outcomes of which are improved with MET inhibition.”

He cautioned, however, that there appears to be “quality of life, side-effect trade-offs with dual MET plus EGFR TKI upfront.”

Dr. Paik said he looks forward to results from FLOWERS on serial circulating tumor DNA and formal androgen receptor testing, which “might aid in further assessing clonality and characterizing MET as a co-driver in this setting.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca China. Dr. Yang had no disclosures. Dr. Paik disclosed relationships with EMD Serono, Bicara, Novartis, and Summit.

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

SAN DIEGO — Combination therapy with osimertinib and savolitinib could become a novel first-line treatment option for patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results of the phase 2 FLOWERS study.

Compared with EGFR inhibitor osimertinib alone, the combination demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in the objective response rate — the study’s primary endpoint — with a positive trend in progression-free survival and a manageable safety profile.

About 30% patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC fail to respond well to EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), explained Jin-Ji Yang, MD, with Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China, who reported the study results at the annual meeting of the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Data suggested that de novo MET amplification occurs in up to 5% patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, and MET overexpression occurs in up to 15% these patients.

Coexistence of EGFR mutation and MET amplification/overexpression reduces sensitivity to EGFR-TKI therapy “and is likely the mechanism for mediating primary resistance to first-line EGFR-TKI monotherapy,” Dr. Yang explained in her presentation.

Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Savolitinib is a highly selective MET-TKI which has demonstrated antitumor activity in various cancers with MET alterations.

The FLOWERS study is the first to test whether combining the two agents could improve efficacy and overcome MET-driven primary resistance in these patients.

The phase 2 study enrolled 44 treatment-naive patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutant, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; 23 were randomly allocated to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) alone and 21 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus savolitinib (300 mg twice daily).

At a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the objective response rate was 60.9% with osimertinib monotherapy vs 90.5% with combination therapy. The disease control rate was also better with the combination therapy than with monotherapy (95.2% vs 87%).

Median duration of response (not yet mature) was 8.4 months with monotherapy vs 18.6 months with combination therapy.

Preliminary progression-free survival data also showed a trend in favor of combination therapy over monotherapy (a median of 19.3 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.59).

Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and there were no fatal adverse events.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with combination therapy (57.1% vs 8.7%). The most common events with monotherapy were diarrhea (56.5%), rash (52.2%), and pruritus (43.5%) and with dual therapy were rash (52.4%), thrombocytopenia (52.4%), and peripheral edema (42.9%).

The results showed that the combination therapy has the potential to become a first-line treatment option for patients who do not respond well to EGFR-TKIs alone, Dr. Yang said in a press release.

Discussant for the study Paul Paik, MD, thoracic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said this study “adds to data suggesting high MET expression might be a poor prognostic or predictive marker, the outcomes of which are improved with MET inhibition.”

He cautioned, however, that there appears to be “quality of life, side-effect trade-offs with dual MET plus EGFR TKI upfront.”

Dr. Paik said he looks forward to results from FLOWERS on serial circulating tumor DNA and formal androgen receptor testing, which “might aid in further assessing clonality and characterizing MET as a co-driver in this setting.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca China. Dr. Yang had no disclosures. Dr. Paik disclosed relationships with EMD Serono, Bicara, Novartis, and Summit.

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

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) show significant reductions in the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and Parkinson’s disease, compared with those treated with other antidiabetic drugs, results from a large population-based cohort show.

“This was the largest nationwide population-based longitudinal cohort study to investigate the association between the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and the incidence of all-cause dementia and Parkinson’s disease,” said first author Hae Kyung Kim, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is known to increase the risk for neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Kim. Key factors attributed to the risk include shared pathophysiological mechanisms such as central nervous system insulin resistance and reduced cerebral glucose metabolism.

While research is lacking on the role of antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, the researcher noted that “SGLT2 inhibitors, which have shown significant cardiorenal benefits and enhanced energy metabolism through ketogenesis, offer promise.”

To further investigate, Dr. Kim and her colleagues conducted the retrospective study, evaluating data on more than 1.3 million enrollees in Korea’s National Health Insurance Service Database who were aged 40 years or older, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and had initiated antidiabetic drugs between September 2014 and December 2019.

In the propensity score analysis, 358,862 patients were matched 1:1, in groups of 179,431 participants each, based on whether they were treated with SGLT2is or other oral antidiabetic drugs. Patients with a history of neurodegenerative disease, cancer, or use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were excluded.

The patients had a mean age of 57.8 years, 57.9% were men, and 6837 had incident dementia or Parkinson’s disease events reported.

With a mean follow-up of 2.88 years, after adjustment for key variables, those treated with SGLT2is had a 19% reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.81), a 31% reduced risk for vascular dementia (aHR, 0.69), and a 20% reduced risk for Parkinson’s disease (aHR, 0.80) compared with the non-SGLT2i group.

Furthermore, those receiving SGLT2i treatment had a 21% reduced risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 0.79) and a 22% reduced risk for all-cause dementia and Parkinson’s disease compared with the oral antidiabetic drug group (aHR, 0.78) with a 6-month drug use lag period.

The association was observed regardless of SGLT2i exposure duration. Subgroup analyses indicated that the reductions in neurodegenerative disorders among those receiving SGLT2is were not associated with factors including age, sex, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose, lipid profiles, kidney function, health behaviors, comorbidities, diabetic complications, or other medication use.

Dr. Kim speculated that mechanisms underlying the reduced dementia risk could include SGLT2i effects of mitigating the common severe risk factors of type 2 diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases, including hypertension, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, and improving hyperperfusion in the heart and cerebral vascular insufficiency.

Commenting on the study to this news organization, Erik H. Serné, MD, of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, who comoderated the session, noted that “people with type 2 diabetes have a 50%-100% increased risk of developing dementia, particularly Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.”

“The increasing prevalence of both conditions poses significant public health challenges, highlighting the need for effective prevention strategies and interventions.”

Currently, treatments for dementia are limited, with most primarily addressing symptoms and not the underlying cause of the neurodegenerative disease, he said.

He noted that, in addition to the effects mentioned by Dr. Kim, SGLT2is are also speculated to provide potential neuroprotective effects through improved glycemic control and insulin sensitivity, reduced inflammation and oxidative stress, enhanced mitochondrial function and energy metabolism, and reduced beta-amyloid and tau pathology.

“These mechanisms collectively may reduce the risk of cognitive decline, particularly in diabetic patients, and warrant further investigation in clinical trials to solidify the neuroprotective role of SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Serné.

In addition to their benefits in type 2 diabetes, SGLT2is “now offer hope in the prevention of dementia, a disease that has very limited therapeutic options thus far. The current data [presented by Dr. Kim] seem to corroborate this,” he added.

Dr. Kim and Dr. Serné had no disclosures to report.

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

MADRID — Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) show significant reductions in the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and Parkinson’s disease, compared with those treated with other antidiabetic drugs, results from a large population-based cohort show.

“This was the largest nationwide population-based longitudinal cohort study to investigate the association between the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and the incidence of all-cause dementia and Parkinson’s disease,” said first author Hae Kyung Kim, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is known to increase the risk for neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Kim. Key factors attributed to the risk include shared pathophysiological mechanisms such as central nervous system insulin resistance and reduced cerebral glucose metabolism.

While research is lacking on the role of antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, the researcher noted that “SGLT2 inhibitors, which have shown significant cardiorenal benefits and enhanced energy metabolism through ketogenesis, offer promise.”

To further investigate, Dr. Kim and her colleagues conducted the retrospective study, evaluating data on more than 1.3 million enrollees in Korea’s National Health Insurance Service Database who were aged 40 years or older, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and had initiated antidiabetic drugs between September 2014 and December 2019.

In the propensity score analysis, 358,862 patients were matched 1:1, in groups of 179,431 participants each, based on whether they were treated with SGLT2is or other oral antidiabetic drugs. Patients with a history of neurodegenerative disease, cancer, or use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were excluded.

The patients had a mean age of 57.8 years, 57.9% were men, and 6837 had incident dementia or Parkinson’s disease events reported.

With a mean follow-up of 2.88 years, after adjustment for key variables, those treated with SGLT2is had a 19% reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.81), a 31% reduced risk for vascular dementia (aHR, 0.69), and a 20% reduced risk for Parkinson’s disease (aHR, 0.80) compared with the non-SGLT2i group.

Furthermore, those receiving SGLT2i treatment had a 21% reduced risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 0.79) and a 22% reduced risk for all-cause dementia and Parkinson’s disease compared with the oral antidiabetic drug group (aHR, 0.78) with a 6-month drug use lag period.

The association was observed regardless of SGLT2i exposure duration. Subgroup analyses indicated that the reductions in neurodegenerative disorders among those receiving SGLT2is were not associated with factors including age, sex, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose, lipid profiles, kidney function, health behaviors, comorbidities, diabetic complications, or other medication use.

Dr. Kim speculated that mechanisms underlying the reduced dementia risk could include SGLT2i effects of mitigating the common severe risk factors of type 2 diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases, including hypertension, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, and improving hyperperfusion in the heart and cerebral vascular insufficiency.

Commenting on the study to this news organization, Erik H. Serné, MD, of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, who comoderated the session, noted that “people with type 2 diabetes have a 50%-100% increased risk of developing dementia, particularly Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.”

“The increasing prevalence of both conditions poses significant public health challenges, highlighting the need for effective prevention strategies and interventions.”

Currently, treatments for dementia are limited, with most primarily addressing symptoms and not the underlying cause of the neurodegenerative disease, he said.

He noted that, in addition to the effects mentioned by Dr. Kim, SGLT2is are also speculated to provide potential neuroprotective effects through improved glycemic control and insulin sensitivity, reduced inflammation and oxidative stress, enhanced mitochondrial function and energy metabolism, and reduced beta-amyloid and tau pathology.

“These mechanisms collectively may reduce the risk of cognitive decline, particularly in diabetic patients, and warrant further investigation in clinical trials to solidify the neuroprotective role of SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Serné.

In addition to their benefits in type 2 diabetes, SGLT2is “now offer hope in the prevention of dementia, a disease that has very limited therapeutic options thus far. The current data [presented by Dr. Kim] seem to corroborate this,” he added.

Dr. Kim and Dr. Serné had no disclosures to report.

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

MADRID — Patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) show significant reductions in the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and Parkinson’s disease, compared with those treated with other antidiabetic drugs, results from a large population-based cohort show.

“This was the largest nationwide population-based longitudinal cohort study to investigate the association between the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and the incidence of all-cause dementia and Parkinson’s disease,” said first author Hae Kyung Kim, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is known to increase the risk for neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Kim. Key factors attributed to the risk include shared pathophysiological mechanisms such as central nervous system insulin resistance and reduced cerebral glucose metabolism.

While research is lacking on the role of antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, the researcher noted that “SGLT2 inhibitors, which have shown significant cardiorenal benefits and enhanced energy metabolism through ketogenesis, offer promise.”

To further investigate, Dr. Kim and her colleagues conducted the retrospective study, evaluating data on more than 1.3 million enrollees in Korea’s National Health Insurance Service Database who were aged 40 years or older, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and had initiated antidiabetic drugs between September 2014 and December 2019.

In the propensity score analysis, 358,862 patients were matched 1:1, in groups of 179,431 participants each, based on whether they were treated with SGLT2is or other oral antidiabetic drugs. Patients with a history of neurodegenerative disease, cancer, or use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were excluded.

The patients had a mean age of 57.8 years, 57.9% were men, and 6837 had incident dementia or Parkinson’s disease events reported.

With a mean follow-up of 2.88 years, after adjustment for key variables, those treated with SGLT2is had a 19% reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.81), a 31% reduced risk for vascular dementia (aHR, 0.69), and a 20% reduced risk for Parkinson’s disease (aHR, 0.80) compared with the non-SGLT2i group.

Furthermore, those receiving SGLT2i treatment had a 21% reduced risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 0.79) and a 22% reduced risk for all-cause dementia and Parkinson’s disease compared with the oral antidiabetic drug group (aHR, 0.78) with a 6-month drug use lag period.

The association was observed regardless of SGLT2i exposure duration. Subgroup analyses indicated that the reductions in neurodegenerative disorders among those receiving SGLT2is were not associated with factors including age, sex, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose, lipid profiles, kidney function, health behaviors, comorbidities, diabetic complications, or other medication use.

Dr. Kim speculated that mechanisms underlying the reduced dementia risk could include SGLT2i effects of mitigating the common severe risk factors of type 2 diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases, including hypertension, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, and improving hyperperfusion in the heart and cerebral vascular insufficiency.

Commenting on the study to this news organization, Erik H. Serné, MD, of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, who comoderated the session, noted that “people with type 2 diabetes have a 50%-100% increased risk of developing dementia, particularly Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.”

“The increasing prevalence of both conditions poses significant public health challenges, highlighting the need for effective prevention strategies and interventions.”

Currently, treatments for dementia are limited, with most primarily addressing symptoms and not the underlying cause of the neurodegenerative disease, he said.

He noted that, in addition to the effects mentioned by Dr. Kim, SGLT2is are also speculated to provide potential neuroprotective effects through improved glycemic control and insulin sensitivity, reduced inflammation and oxidative stress, enhanced mitochondrial function and energy metabolism, and reduced beta-amyloid and tau pathology.

“These mechanisms collectively may reduce the risk of cognitive decline, particularly in diabetic patients, and warrant further investigation in clinical trials to solidify the neuroprotective role of SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Serné.

In addition to their benefits in type 2 diabetes, SGLT2is “now offer hope in the prevention of dementia, a disease that has very limited therapeutic options thus far. The current data [presented by Dr. Kim] seem to corroborate this,” he added.

Dr. Kim and Dr. Serné had no disclosures to report.

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

Research on pain management during placement of intrauterine devices (IUD) is lacking, but most studies so far indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not effective, according to a poster presented at Pain Week 2024 in Las Vegas.

Roughly 79% of the 14 studies included in the systematic review found NSAIDs — one of the most common drugs clinicians advise patients to take before placement — did not diminish discomfort.

“We’re challenging the current practice of using just NSAIDs as a first-line of treatment,” said Kevin Rowland, PhD, professor and chair of biomedical sciences at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine in Houston, who helped conduct the meta-analysis. “We need additional measures.”

Some studies found the drugs offered virtually no improvement for patients, while the biggest drop in pain shown in one study was about 40%. The range of pain levels women reported while using NSAIDs was between 1.8 and 7.3 on the visual analog scale (VAS), with an average score of 4.25.

The review included 10 types of NSAIDs and dosages administered to patients before the procedure. One intramuscular NSAID was included while the remaining were oral. All studies were peer-reviewed, used the VAS pain scale, and were not limited to any specific population.

The findings highlight a longstanding but unresolved problem in reproductive health: An overall lack of effective pain management strategies for gynecologic procedures.

“We went into this having a pretty good idea of what we were going to find because [the lack of NSAID efficacy] has been shown before, it’s been talked about before, and we’re just not listening as a medical community,” said Isabella D. Martingano, an MD candidate at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine, who led the review.

The research also points to a lack of robust studies on pain during IUD placement, said Emma Lakey, a coauthor and medical student at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine.

“We were only able to review 14 studies, which was enough to go off of, but considering we were looking for trials about pain control for a procedure that helps prevent pregnancy, that’s just not enough research,” Ms. Lakey said.

Discomfort associated with IUD placement ranges from mild to severe, can last for over a week, and includes cramping, bleeding, lightheadedness, nausea, and fainting. Some research suggests that providers may underestimate the level of pain the procedures cause.

“Unfortunately, the pain associated with IUD insertion and removal has been underplayed for a long time and many practitioners in the field likely haven’t counseled patients fully on what the procedure will feel like,” said Jennifer Chin, MD, an ob.gyn. and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle.

NSAIDs are not mentioned in the recently expanded guidelines on IUD placement from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC recommends lidocaine paracervical blocks, gels, sprays, and creams, plus counseling women about pain ahead of the procedures.

IUDs are one of the most effective forms of birth control, with a failure rate below 1%.

Yet hearing about painful placement keeps many women from seeking out an IUD or replacing an existing device, Dr. Rowland said. The review adds to the body of evidence that current strategies are not working and that more research is needed, he said.

According to Dr. Chin, making IUDs more accessible means taking a more personalized approach to pain management while understanding that what may be a painless procedure for one patient may be excruciating for another.

Dr. Chin offers a range of options for her patients, including NSAIDs, lorazepam for anxiety, paracervical blocks, lidocaine jelly and spray, intravenous sedation, and general anesthesia. She also talks to her patients through the procedure and provides guided imagery and meditation.

“We should always make sure we’re prioritizing the patients and providing evidence-based, compassionate, and individualized care,” said Dr. Chin. “Each patient comes to us in a particular context and with a specific set of experiences and history that will make a difference in how we’re best able to take care of them.”

The authors reported no disclosures and no sources of funding. Dr. Chin reported no disclosures.
 

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

Research on pain management during placement of intrauterine devices (IUD) is lacking, but most studies so far indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not effective, according to a poster presented at Pain Week 2024 in Las Vegas.

Roughly 79% of the 14 studies included in the systematic review found NSAIDs — one of the most common drugs clinicians advise patients to take before placement — did not diminish discomfort.

“We’re challenging the current practice of using just NSAIDs as a first-line of treatment,” said Kevin Rowland, PhD, professor and chair of biomedical sciences at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine in Houston, who helped conduct the meta-analysis. “We need additional measures.”

Some studies found the drugs offered virtually no improvement for patients, while the biggest drop in pain shown in one study was about 40%. The range of pain levels women reported while using NSAIDs was between 1.8 and 7.3 on the visual analog scale (VAS), with an average score of 4.25.

The review included 10 types of NSAIDs and dosages administered to patients before the procedure. One intramuscular NSAID was included while the remaining were oral. All studies were peer-reviewed, used the VAS pain scale, and were not limited to any specific population.

The findings highlight a longstanding but unresolved problem in reproductive health: An overall lack of effective pain management strategies for gynecologic procedures.

“We went into this having a pretty good idea of what we were going to find because [the lack of NSAID efficacy] has been shown before, it’s been talked about before, and we’re just not listening as a medical community,” said Isabella D. Martingano, an MD candidate at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine, who led the review.

The research also points to a lack of robust studies on pain during IUD placement, said Emma Lakey, a coauthor and medical student at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine.

“We were only able to review 14 studies, which was enough to go off of, but considering we were looking for trials about pain control for a procedure that helps prevent pregnancy, that’s just not enough research,” Ms. Lakey said.

Discomfort associated with IUD placement ranges from mild to severe, can last for over a week, and includes cramping, bleeding, lightheadedness, nausea, and fainting. Some research suggests that providers may underestimate the level of pain the procedures cause.

“Unfortunately, the pain associated with IUD insertion and removal has been underplayed for a long time and many practitioners in the field likely haven’t counseled patients fully on what the procedure will feel like,” said Jennifer Chin, MD, an ob.gyn. and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle.

NSAIDs are not mentioned in the recently expanded guidelines on IUD placement from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC recommends lidocaine paracervical blocks, gels, sprays, and creams, plus counseling women about pain ahead of the procedures.

IUDs are one of the most effective forms of birth control, with a failure rate below 1%.

Yet hearing about painful placement keeps many women from seeking out an IUD or replacing an existing device, Dr. Rowland said. The review adds to the body of evidence that current strategies are not working and that more research is needed, he said.

According to Dr. Chin, making IUDs more accessible means taking a more personalized approach to pain management while understanding that what may be a painless procedure for one patient may be excruciating for another.

Dr. Chin offers a range of options for her patients, including NSAIDs, lorazepam for anxiety, paracervical blocks, lidocaine jelly and spray, intravenous sedation, and general anesthesia. She also talks to her patients through the procedure and provides guided imagery and meditation.

“We should always make sure we’re prioritizing the patients and providing evidence-based, compassionate, and individualized care,” said Dr. Chin. “Each patient comes to us in a particular context and with a specific set of experiences and history that will make a difference in how we’re best able to take care of them.”

The authors reported no disclosures and no sources of funding. Dr. Chin reported no disclosures.
 

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

Research on pain management during placement of intrauterine devices (IUD) is lacking, but most studies so far indicate that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not effective, according to a poster presented at Pain Week 2024 in Las Vegas.

Roughly 79% of the 14 studies included in the systematic review found NSAIDs — one of the most common drugs clinicians advise patients to take before placement — did not diminish discomfort.

“We’re challenging the current practice of using just NSAIDs as a first-line of treatment,” said Kevin Rowland, PhD, professor and chair of biomedical sciences at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine in Houston, who helped conduct the meta-analysis. “We need additional measures.”

Some studies found the drugs offered virtually no improvement for patients, while the biggest drop in pain shown in one study was about 40%. The range of pain levels women reported while using NSAIDs was between 1.8 and 7.3 on the visual analog scale (VAS), with an average score of 4.25.

The review included 10 types of NSAIDs and dosages administered to patients before the procedure. One intramuscular NSAID was included while the remaining were oral. All studies were peer-reviewed, used the VAS pain scale, and were not limited to any specific population.

The findings highlight a longstanding but unresolved problem in reproductive health: An overall lack of effective pain management strategies for gynecologic procedures.

“We went into this having a pretty good idea of what we were going to find because [the lack of NSAID efficacy] has been shown before, it’s been talked about before, and we’re just not listening as a medical community,” said Isabella D. Martingano, an MD candidate at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine, who led the review.

The research also points to a lack of robust studies on pain during IUD placement, said Emma Lakey, a coauthor and medical student at Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine.

“We were only able to review 14 studies, which was enough to go off of, but considering we were looking for trials about pain control for a procedure that helps prevent pregnancy, that’s just not enough research,” Ms. Lakey said.

Discomfort associated with IUD placement ranges from mild to severe, can last for over a week, and includes cramping, bleeding, lightheadedness, nausea, and fainting. Some research suggests that providers may underestimate the level of pain the procedures cause.

“Unfortunately, the pain associated with IUD insertion and removal has been underplayed for a long time and many practitioners in the field likely haven’t counseled patients fully on what the procedure will feel like,” said Jennifer Chin, MD, an ob.gyn. and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle.

NSAIDs are not mentioned in the recently expanded guidelines on IUD placement from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC recommends lidocaine paracervical blocks, gels, sprays, and creams, plus counseling women about pain ahead of the procedures.

IUDs are one of the most effective forms of birth control, with a failure rate below 1%.

Yet hearing about painful placement keeps many women from seeking out an IUD or replacing an existing device, Dr. Rowland said. The review adds to the body of evidence that current strategies are not working and that more research is needed, he said.

According to Dr. Chin, making IUDs more accessible means taking a more personalized approach to pain management while understanding that what may be a painless procedure for one patient may be excruciating for another.

Dr. Chin offers a range of options for her patients, including NSAIDs, lorazepam for anxiety, paracervical blocks, lidocaine jelly and spray, intravenous sedation, and general anesthesia. She also talks to her patients through the procedure and provides guided imagery and meditation.

“We should always make sure we’re prioritizing the patients and providing evidence-based, compassionate, and individualized care,” said Dr. Chin. “Each patient comes to us in a particular context and with a specific set of experiences and history that will make a difference in how we’re best able to take care of them.”

The authors reported no disclosures and no sources of funding. Dr. Chin reported no disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — A daily 8-hour eating window controls blood glucose whether followed early or late in the day by people at risk for type 2 diabetes, showed a time-restricted eating (TRE) study presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The study, examining shifting the time of day for the 8-hour eating window along with a tightly controlled diet, found that 8 hours of TRE — whether early or late in the day — led to a significant improvement in the time spent within a normal daily blood glucose range and in glycemic variability.

“We didn’t show a benefit in terms of early versus late TRE, but we did show a benefit of time-restricted eating within a window of 8 h/d,” said study lead Kelly Bowden Davies, MSc, PhD, from Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, when presenting the work. “It doesn’t matter when you restrict eating, but if you restrict it to 8 hours then, according to our study, it benefits glycemic control in people at risk of type 2 diabetes.”

The researcher added that the effect was seen after only 3 days, and “demonstrates its therapeutic role in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes, which warrants investigation in the longer term.”

The current study examined the effect of shifting the time of day for the TRE window from early (8 AM-4 PM) to late (12 PM-8 PM) in people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to a lifestyle characterized as sedentary and poor diet.

Previous studies indicate that TRE, which limits when, but not what, individuals eat, can improve insulin sensitivity and A1c in people at risk for type 2 diabetes.

But Dr. Bowden Davies pointed out that the effect of TRE on glycemic variability remained unclear. While prior work had attributed the positive effects of TRE to reduced energy intake, this study provided a diet where energy consumption matched energy expenditure — taking into account sex, age, weight, height, and activity level, termed a “eucaloric” diet.

“Some research groups recognize that if we manipulate the time at which we eat, then we can better align with circadian metabolic rhythms to improve whole body insulin sensitivity and glycemic variability,” explained Dr. Bowden Davies. “It may be that eating in the morning may be better aligned [with circadian rhythms] and cause greater improvement in glucose control.”
 

Three-Day TRE Plan Led to Blood Glucose Control

In a cross-over study design, all 15 participants were randomized to follow the early and late TRE regimens with a 7-day washout period in the middle. Participants had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.7 kg/m², had a mean waist circumference of 73 cm, were sedentary, and followed a poor diet.

“Participants were normoglycemic so had good glucose control, but due to having overweight and obesity, they are considered as having risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes,” noted Dr. Bowden Davies.

Before the TRE period, participants provided researchers with a dietary record. If they started on the early TRE, they crossed over to the late TRE after the washout period, and vice versa, she explained.

Continuous glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre 2, Abbott Laboratories) was carried out across the study to assess the daily time spent in euglycemia (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) and provide markers of glycemic variability, including mean absolute glucose, coefficient of variation, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions. Blood draws both pre- and post-TRE period provided biochemical measurements, and anthropometric readings were also taken.

There were nine female participants, with a mean age of 52 years, a BMI of 28 kg/m², and an A1c level of 37.9 mmol/mol (5.6%). They tended to snack across an eating period of 14 h/d or more (habitual eating). They were assigned to two different investigational eating patterns for 3-day durations: Early or late, and these findings were compared with those from participants who continued their habitual eating.

Participants were provided with a eucaloric, standardized diet [50% carbohydrates, 30% fat, and 20% protein] to be eaten during the TRE period, whereas they ate as usual (ie, as and what they wanted) when not on the TRE regimen.

No changes were seen in the biochemistry markers assessed. “Given they only followed the TRE for 3 days, this is unsurprising,” remarked Dr. Bowden Davies. “We did see weight loss after only 3 days of TRE of around 1.1 kg across the two interventions,” she reported.

Referring to the early vs late TRE regimen, she added that “we didn’t see a benefit [no significant differences in glycemic control] of early compared with late TRE, but we did see a benefit of restricting the eating window to 8 h/d, so both conditions [early and late TRE regimens] had a benefit on glucose control.”

Variables of blood glucose control were also reduced while on the TRE regimen compared with habitual eating (more than 14 h/d), with significantly increased time spent within the normal blood glucose range on average by 3.3%, and also reduced mean absolute glucose by 0.6 mmol/L, coefficient of variation by 2.6%, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions by 0.4 mmol/L.

“Within 3 days, this is quite striking,” Dr. Bowden Davies pointed out.

She added that these data were interim analyses, but “these are positive in terms of participants seeing a benefit in glucose control and glycemic variability, which is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes but also for microvascular complications. We also saw improved time in range in terms of tight glucose control.

“Even in 3 days, there were small, subtle differences which are subclinical — but this is not a clinical cohort. The results are statistically significant and a promising piece of data to suggest a feasible intervention that could be translated across different populations,” she said, adding that over a longer time period, changes between TRE timing might show changes in people at risk for type 2 diabetes who don’t have compromised circadian rhythms.

Moderating the session was Lutgarda Bozzetto, MD, from the University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. She told this news organization, “It’s a hot topic right now, and the finding that there’s no difference in the time of day when the restricted eating is done suggests that in people at risk of diabetes, the hormonal flux and cycle involved in blood glucose control is not so strong or sensitive.”

Using a continuous glucose monitor, they can look at their blood glucose levels after eating, and this might “be powerful in guiding behavioral change,” said Dr. Bozzetto.

Abbott Laboratories funded the continuous glucose monitoring. Neither Dr. Bowden Davies nor Dr. Bozzetto had any other relevant financial disclosures.

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

MADRID — A daily 8-hour eating window controls blood glucose whether followed early or late in the day by people at risk for type 2 diabetes, showed a time-restricted eating (TRE) study presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The study, examining shifting the time of day for the 8-hour eating window along with a tightly controlled diet, found that 8 hours of TRE — whether early or late in the day — led to a significant improvement in the time spent within a normal daily blood glucose range and in glycemic variability.

“We didn’t show a benefit in terms of early versus late TRE, but we did show a benefit of time-restricted eating within a window of 8 h/d,” said study lead Kelly Bowden Davies, MSc, PhD, from Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, when presenting the work. “It doesn’t matter when you restrict eating, but if you restrict it to 8 hours then, according to our study, it benefits glycemic control in people at risk of type 2 diabetes.”

The researcher added that the effect was seen after only 3 days, and “demonstrates its therapeutic role in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes, which warrants investigation in the longer term.”

The current study examined the effect of shifting the time of day for the TRE window from early (8 AM-4 PM) to late (12 PM-8 PM) in people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to a lifestyle characterized as sedentary and poor diet.

Previous studies indicate that TRE, which limits when, but not what, individuals eat, can improve insulin sensitivity and A1c in people at risk for type 2 diabetes.

But Dr. Bowden Davies pointed out that the effect of TRE on glycemic variability remained unclear. While prior work had attributed the positive effects of TRE to reduced energy intake, this study provided a diet where energy consumption matched energy expenditure — taking into account sex, age, weight, height, and activity level, termed a “eucaloric” diet.

“Some research groups recognize that if we manipulate the time at which we eat, then we can better align with circadian metabolic rhythms to improve whole body insulin sensitivity and glycemic variability,” explained Dr. Bowden Davies. “It may be that eating in the morning may be better aligned [with circadian rhythms] and cause greater improvement in glucose control.”
 

Three-Day TRE Plan Led to Blood Glucose Control

In a cross-over study design, all 15 participants were randomized to follow the early and late TRE regimens with a 7-day washout period in the middle. Participants had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.7 kg/m², had a mean waist circumference of 73 cm, were sedentary, and followed a poor diet.

“Participants were normoglycemic so had good glucose control, but due to having overweight and obesity, they are considered as having risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes,” noted Dr. Bowden Davies.

Before the TRE period, participants provided researchers with a dietary record. If they started on the early TRE, they crossed over to the late TRE after the washout period, and vice versa, she explained.

Continuous glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre 2, Abbott Laboratories) was carried out across the study to assess the daily time spent in euglycemia (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) and provide markers of glycemic variability, including mean absolute glucose, coefficient of variation, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions. Blood draws both pre- and post-TRE period provided biochemical measurements, and anthropometric readings were also taken.

There were nine female participants, with a mean age of 52 years, a BMI of 28 kg/m², and an A1c level of 37.9 mmol/mol (5.6%). They tended to snack across an eating period of 14 h/d or more (habitual eating). They were assigned to two different investigational eating patterns for 3-day durations: Early or late, and these findings were compared with those from participants who continued their habitual eating.

Participants were provided with a eucaloric, standardized diet [50% carbohydrates, 30% fat, and 20% protein] to be eaten during the TRE period, whereas they ate as usual (ie, as and what they wanted) when not on the TRE regimen.

No changes were seen in the biochemistry markers assessed. “Given they only followed the TRE for 3 days, this is unsurprising,” remarked Dr. Bowden Davies. “We did see weight loss after only 3 days of TRE of around 1.1 kg across the two interventions,” she reported.

Referring to the early vs late TRE regimen, she added that “we didn’t see a benefit [no significant differences in glycemic control] of early compared with late TRE, but we did see a benefit of restricting the eating window to 8 h/d, so both conditions [early and late TRE regimens] had a benefit on glucose control.”

Variables of blood glucose control were also reduced while on the TRE regimen compared with habitual eating (more than 14 h/d), with significantly increased time spent within the normal blood glucose range on average by 3.3%, and also reduced mean absolute glucose by 0.6 mmol/L, coefficient of variation by 2.6%, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions by 0.4 mmol/L.

“Within 3 days, this is quite striking,” Dr. Bowden Davies pointed out.

She added that these data were interim analyses, but “these are positive in terms of participants seeing a benefit in glucose control and glycemic variability, which is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes but also for microvascular complications. We also saw improved time in range in terms of tight glucose control.

“Even in 3 days, there were small, subtle differences which are subclinical — but this is not a clinical cohort. The results are statistically significant and a promising piece of data to suggest a feasible intervention that could be translated across different populations,” she said, adding that over a longer time period, changes between TRE timing might show changes in people at risk for type 2 diabetes who don’t have compromised circadian rhythms.

Moderating the session was Lutgarda Bozzetto, MD, from the University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. She told this news organization, “It’s a hot topic right now, and the finding that there’s no difference in the time of day when the restricted eating is done suggests that in people at risk of diabetes, the hormonal flux and cycle involved in blood glucose control is not so strong or sensitive.”

Using a continuous glucose monitor, they can look at their blood glucose levels after eating, and this might “be powerful in guiding behavioral change,” said Dr. Bozzetto.

Abbott Laboratories funded the continuous glucose monitoring. Neither Dr. Bowden Davies nor Dr. Bozzetto had any other relevant financial disclosures.

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

MADRID — A daily 8-hour eating window controls blood glucose whether followed early or late in the day by people at risk for type 2 diabetes, showed a time-restricted eating (TRE) study presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The study, examining shifting the time of day for the 8-hour eating window along with a tightly controlled diet, found that 8 hours of TRE — whether early or late in the day — led to a significant improvement in the time spent within a normal daily blood glucose range and in glycemic variability.

“We didn’t show a benefit in terms of early versus late TRE, but we did show a benefit of time-restricted eating within a window of 8 h/d,” said study lead Kelly Bowden Davies, MSc, PhD, from Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, England, when presenting the work. “It doesn’t matter when you restrict eating, but if you restrict it to 8 hours then, according to our study, it benefits glycemic control in people at risk of type 2 diabetes.”

The researcher added that the effect was seen after only 3 days, and “demonstrates its therapeutic role in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes, which warrants investigation in the longer term.”

The current study examined the effect of shifting the time of day for the TRE window from early (8 AM-4 PM) to late (12 PM-8 PM) in people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to a lifestyle characterized as sedentary and poor diet.

Previous studies indicate that TRE, which limits when, but not what, individuals eat, can improve insulin sensitivity and A1c in people at risk for type 2 diabetes.

But Dr. Bowden Davies pointed out that the effect of TRE on glycemic variability remained unclear. While prior work had attributed the positive effects of TRE to reduced energy intake, this study provided a diet where energy consumption matched energy expenditure — taking into account sex, age, weight, height, and activity level, termed a “eucaloric” diet.

“Some research groups recognize that if we manipulate the time at which we eat, then we can better align with circadian metabolic rhythms to improve whole body insulin sensitivity and glycemic variability,” explained Dr. Bowden Davies. “It may be that eating in the morning may be better aligned [with circadian rhythms] and cause greater improvement in glucose control.”
 

Three-Day TRE Plan Led to Blood Glucose Control

In a cross-over study design, all 15 participants were randomized to follow the early and late TRE regimens with a 7-day washout period in the middle. Participants had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.7 kg/m², had a mean waist circumference of 73 cm, were sedentary, and followed a poor diet.

“Participants were normoglycemic so had good glucose control, but due to having overweight and obesity, they are considered as having risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes,” noted Dr. Bowden Davies.

Before the TRE period, participants provided researchers with a dietary record. If they started on the early TRE, they crossed over to the late TRE after the washout period, and vice versa, she explained.

Continuous glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre 2, Abbott Laboratories) was carried out across the study to assess the daily time spent in euglycemia (3.9-7.8 mmol/L) and provide markers of glycemic variability, including mean absolute glucose, coefficient of variation, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions. Blood draws both pre- and post-TRE period provided biochemical measurements, and anthropometric readings were also taken.

There were nine female participants, with a mean age of 52 years, a BMI of 28 kg/m², and an A1c level of 37.9 mmol/mol (5.6%). They tended to snack across an eating period of 14 h/d or more (habitual eating). They were assigned to two different investigational eating patterns for 3-day durations: Early or late, and these findings were compared with those from participants who continued their habitual eating.

Participants were provided with a eucaloric, standardized diet [50% carbohydrates, 30% fat, and 20% protein] to be eaten during the TRE period, whereas they ate as usual (ie, as and what they wanted) when not on the TRE regimen.

No changes were seen in the biochemistry markers assessed. “Given they only followed the TRE for 3 days, this is unsurprising,” remarked Dr. Bowden Davies. “We did see weight loss after only 3 days of TRE of around 1.1 kg across the two interventions,” she reported.

Referring to the early vs late TRE regimen, she added that “we didn’t see a benefit [no significant differences in glycemic control] of early compared with late TRE, but we did see a benefit of restricting the eating window to 8 h/d, so both conditions [early and late TRE regimens] had a benefit on glucose control.”

Variables of blood glucose control were also reduced while on the TRE regimen compared with habitual eating (more than 14 h/d), with significantly increased time spent within the normal blood glucose range on average by 3.3%, and also reduced mean absolute glucose by 0.6 mmol/L, coefficient of variation by 2.6%, and mean amplitude of glucose excursions by 0.4 mmol/L.

“Within 3 days, this is quite striking,” Dr. Bowden Davies pointed out.

She added that these data were interim analyses, but “these are positive in terms of participants seeing a benefit in glucose control and glycemic variability, which is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes but also for microvascular complications. We also saw improved time in range in terms of tight glucose control.

“Even in 3 days, there were small, subtle differences which are subclinical — but this is not a clinical cohort. The results are statistically significant and a promising piece of data to suggest a feasible intervention that could be translated across different populations,” she said, adding that over a longer time period, changes between TRE timing might show changes in people at risk for type 2 diabetes who don’t have compromised circadian rhythms.

Moderating the session was Lutgarda Bozzetto, MD, from the University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. She told this news organization, “It’s a hot topic right now, and the finding that there’s no difference in the time of day when the restricted eating is done suggests that in people at risk of diabetes, the hormonal flux and cycle involved in blood glucose control is not so strong or sensitive.”

Using a continuous glucose monitor, they can look at their blood glucose levels after eating, and this might “be powerful in guiding behavioral change,” said Dr. Bozzetto.

Abbott Laboratories funded the continuous glucose monitoring. Neither Dr. Bowden Davies nor Dr. Bozzetto had any other relevant financial disclosures.

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