Conference Coverage

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

TORONTO — Be suspicious if a child with a severe dermatologic condition is unresponsive to treatment, especially if their parent or caregiver exhibits deceptive behavior.

These could be red flags for Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), also known as factitious disorder.

“The No. 1 thing dermatologists can do in situations like this is be open to thinking outside the box and ask themselves the difficult question: Could this be something the parent is inflicting on the child,” Kelly Frasier, DO, a dermatology clinical trials and epidemiology research fellow at Northwell Health, Poughkeepsie, New York, said in an interview.

courtesy Pauline Anderson

She provided a review on advancing the understanding of the dermatologic manifestations of MSBP during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD). Dr. Frasier has a particular interest in psychodermatology — she was a mental health therapist before going to medical school.

MSBP is a type of abuse intentionally inflicted by a caregiver typically on their child “for some ulterior motive,” usually to seek attention or sympathy and not for material or financial gain, explained Dr. Frasier. People with MSBP seek medical help for exaggerated or fabricated symptoms in their child. They may alter medical tests, falsify medical records, or induce symptoms in their child.

To do this, these abusers may apply any number of caustic household products, including glue, directly to the child’s skin or even in formula. Dr. Frasier shared a picture of a baby whose formula had been doctored with a caustic substance that had dripped onto his neck and face, causing a rash with blisters.

In addition to blistering, cutaneous manifestations of MSBP can include severe bruising. Or the child may present with signs similar to those of granuloma annulare (a benign condition characterized by small, raised bumps) or cicatricial pemphigoid (a rare, chronic autoimmune blistering disorder) or may have recurrent nail avulsion, purpura, or coagulopathy, said Dr. Frasier.

In almost all cases of MSBP (an estimated 96%), the abuse is inflicted by the mother, who may have a preexisting mental illness. “Usually, a psychological disorder is at play, such as depression or anxiety,” said Dr. Frasier.

Some evidence suggests that, in cases of MSBP, the caregiver may have a personality disorder such as borderline or histrionic personality disorder — or may have suffered abuse or neglect as a child or is experiencing major stress, which some evidence suggests can trigger MSPB, she added.

This type of abuse is rarely seen in children older than 6 years, likely because they get wise to what’s going on and are better able to fight back or resist as they get older, Dr. Fraser noted.

High Mortality Rate

It’s critical that cases of MSBP are identified early. While a small proportion of child abuse cases involve MSBP, the mortality rate is extremely high, about 10%, research suggests, said Dr. Frasier.

Dermatologists should be skeptical if the child’s condition hasn’t improved despite trying numerous treatments that normally would have some effect. “If you’re doing everything you can to treat something that’s usually pretty simple in terms of what you normally see clinically and how you treat it, and you’re not seeing any improvement or things continue to get worse, that’s definitely a sign something else may be going on,” Dr. Frasier said.

Another suspicious sign is inflammation that continues “for weeks or months” and “doesn’t match up with actual lab markers and lab values,” said Dr. Frasier.

Other signs of possible MSBP include evidence of chemicals in the child’s blood, stool, or urine, or the child’s condition improves while in the hospital, but symptoms return after returning home.

Also be aware of the interaction between the parent and child, said Dr. Frasier. “See if you can pick up that something else might be going on, especially if the symptoms aren’t lining up very well with what you’re physically seeing and what your clinical impression is.”

And be suspicious of a parent’s inappropriate behavior; for example, they seem to be deliberately making symptoms worse or appear overly distraught. The seemingly caring parent could be overcompensating for what she’s doing at home, “and she wants to make sure it doesn’t appear that way,” said Dr. Frasier.

To help determine if some sort of trauma is occurring at home, the child would ideally be separated from the caregiver, perhaps with a nurse or other member of the interdisciplinary medical team, Dr. Frasier said.

It appears that pediatric dermatologists are already aware of the importance of protecting children from abuse. During a presentation at the meeting on child abuse and maltreatment in dermatology, not specifically on MSBP, Romy Cho, MD, assistant professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, who is involved with the SCAN Program at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, polled the audience on whether they had ever contacted child protective services (CPS). Almost 80% said they had.

That’s good news for Dr. Frasier. “We have to be willing to contact CPS if we think there’s something going on, and be more open to that because it’s better to be safe than sorry, especially in cases involving children.”

Dr. Frasier and Dr. Cho had no relevant disclosures.

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

TORONTO — Be suspicious if a child with a severe dermatologic condition is unresponsive to treatment, especially if their parent or caregiver exhibits deceptive behavior.

These could be red flags for Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), also known as factitious disorder.

“The No. 1 thing dermatologists can do in situations like this is be open to thinking outside the box and ask themselves the difficult question: Could this be something the parent is inflicting on the child,” Kelly Frasier, DO, a dermatology clinical trials and epidemiology research fellow at Northwell Health, Poughkeepsie, New York, said in an interview.

courtesy Pauline Anderson

She provided a review on advancing the understanding of the dermatologic manifestations of MSBP during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD). Dr. Frasier has a particular interest in psychodermatology — she was a mental health therapist before going to medical school.

MSBP is a type of abuse intentionally inflicted by a caregiver typically on their child “for some ulterior motive,” usually to seek attention or sympathy and not for material or financial gain, explained Dr. Frasier. People with MSBP seek medical help for exaggerated or fabricated symptoms in their child. They may alter medical tests, falsify medical records, or induce symptoms in their child.

To do this, these abusers may apply any number of caustic household products, including glue, directly to the child’s skin or even in formula. Dr. Frasier shared a picture of a baby whose formula had been doctored with a caustic substance that had dripped onto his neck and face, causing a rash with blisters.

In addition to blistering, cutaneous manifestations of MSBP can include severe bruising. Or the child may present with signs similar to those of granuloma annulare (a benign condition characterized by small, raised bumps) or cicatricial pemphigoid (a rare, chronic autoimmune blistering disorder) or may have recurrent nail avulsion, purpura, or coagulopathy, said Dr. Frasier.

In almost all cases of MSBP (an estimated 96%), the abuse is inflicted by the mother, who may have a preexisting mental illness. “Usually, a psychological disorder is at play, such as depression or anxiety,” said Dr. Frasier.

Some evidence suggests that, in cases of MSBP, the caregiver may have a personality disorder such as borderline or histrionic personality disorder — or may have suffered abuse or neglect as a child or is experiencing major stress, which some evidence suggests can trigger MSPB, she added.

This type of abuse is rarely seen in children older than 6 years, likely because they get wise to what’s going on and are better able to fight back or resist as they get older, Dr. Fraser noted.

High Mortality Rate

It’s critical that cases of MSBP are identified early. While a small proportion of child abuse cases involve MSBP, the mortality rate is extremely high, about 10%, research suggests, said Dr. Frasier.

Dermatologists should be skeptical if the child’s condition hasn’t improved despite trying numerous treatments that normally would have some effect. “If you’re doing everything you can to treat something that’s usually pretty simple in terms of what you normally see clinically and how you treat it, and you’re not seeing any improvement or things continue to get worse, that’s definitely a sign something else may be going on,” Dr. Frasier said.

Another suspicious sign is inflammation that continues “for weeks or months” and “doesn’t match up with actual lab markers and lab values,” said Dr. Frasier.

Other signs of possible MSBP include evidence of chemicals in the child’s blood, stool, or urine, or the child’s condition improves while in the hospital, but symptoms return after returning home.

Also be aware of the interaction between the parent and child, said Dr. Frasier. “See if you can pick up that something else might be going on, especially if the symptoms aren’t lining up very well with what you’re physically seeing and what your clinical impression is.”

And be suspicious of a parent’s inappropriate behavior; for example, they seem to be deliberately making symptoms worse or appear overly distraught. The seemingly caring parent could be overcompensating for what she’s doing at home, “and she wants to make sure it doesn’t appear that way,” said Dr. Frasier.

To help determine if some sort of trauma is occurring at home, the child would ideally be separated from the caregiver, perhaps with a nurse or other member of the interdisciplinary medical team, Dr. Frasier said.

It appears that pediatric dermatologists are already aware of the importance of protecting children from abuse. During a presentation at the meeting on child abuse and maltreatment in dermatology, not specifically on MSBP, Romy Cho, MD, assistant professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, who is involved with the SCAN Program at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, polled the audience on whether they had ever contacted child protective services (CPS). Almost 80% said they had.

That’s good news for Dr. Frasier. “We have to be willing to contact CPS if we think there’s something going on, and be more open to that because it’s better to be safe than sorry, especially in cases involving children.”

Dr. Frasier and Dr. Cho had no relevant disclosures.

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

TORONTO — Be suspicious if a child with a severe dermatologic condition is unresponsive to treatment, especially if their parent or caregiver exhibits deceptive behavior.

These could be red flags for Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), also known as factitious disorder.

“The No. 1 thing dermatologists can do in situations like this is be open to thinking outside the box and ask themselves the difficult question: Could this be something the parent is inflicting on the child,” Kelly Frasier, DO, a dermatology clinical trials and epidemiology research fellow at Northwell Health, Poughkeepsie, New York, said in an interview.

courtesy Pauline Anderson

She provided a review on advancing the understanding of the dermatologic manifestations of MSBP during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD). Dr. Frasier has a particular interest in psychodermatology — she was a mental health therapist before going to medical school.

MSBP is a type of abuse intentionally inflicted by a caregiver typically on their child “for some ulterior motive,” usually to seek attention or sympathy and not for material or financial gain, explained Dr. Frasier. People with MSBP seek medical help for exaggerated or fabricated symptoms in their child. They may alter medical tests, falsify medical records, or induce symptoms in their child.

To do this, these abusers may apply any number of caustic household products, including glue, directly to the child’s skin or even in formula. Dr. Frasier shared a picture of a baby whose formula had been doctored with a caustic substance that had dripped onto his neck and face, causing a rash with blisters.

In addition to blistering, cutaneous manifestations of MSBP can include severe bruising. Or the child may present with signs similar to those of granuloma annulare (a benign condition characterized by small, raised bumps) or cicatricial pemphigoid (a rare, chronic autoimmune blistering disorder) or may have recurrent nail avulsion, purpura, or coagulopathy, said Dr. Frasier.

In almost all cases of MSBP (an estimated 96%), the abuse is inflicted by the mother, who may have a preexisting mental illness. “Usually, a psychological disorder is at play, such as depression or anxiety,” said Dr. Frasier.

Some evidence suggests that, in cases of MSBP, the caregiver may have a personality disorder such as borderline or histrionic personality disorder — or may have suffered abuse or neglect as a child or is experiencing major stress, which some evidence suggests can trigger MSPB, she added.

This type of abuse is rarely seen in children older than 6 years, likely because they get wise to what’s going on and are better able to fight back or resist as they get older, Dr. Fraser noted.

High Mortality Rate

It’s critical that cases of MSBP are identified early. While a small proportion of child abuse cases involve MSBP, the mortality rate is extremely high, about 10%, research suggests, said Dr. Frasier.

Dermatologists should be skeptical if the child’s condition hasn’t improved despite trying numerous treatments that normally would have some effect. “If you’re doing everything you can to treat something that’s usually pretty simple in terms of what you normally see clinically and how you treat it, and you’re not seeing any improvement or things continue to get worse, that’s definitely a sign something else may be going on,” Dr. Frasier said.

Another suspicious sign is inflammation that continues “for weeks or months” and “doesn’t match up with actual lab markers and lab values,” said Dr. Frasier.

Other signs of possible MSBP include evidence of chemicals in the child’s blood, stool, or urine, or the child’s condition improves while in the hospital, but symptoms return after returning home.

Also be aware of the interaction between the parent and child, said Dr. Frasier. “See if you can pick up that something else might be going on, especially if the symptoms aren’t lining up very well with what you’re physically seeing and what your clinical impression is.”

And be suspicious of a parent’s inappropriate behavior; for example, they seem to be deliberately making symptoms worse or appear overly distraught. The seemingly caring parent could be overcompensating for what she’s doing at home, “and she wants to make sure it doesn’t appear that way,” said Dr. Frasier.

To help determine if some sort of trauma is occurring at home, the child would ideally be separated from the caregiver, perhaps with a nurse or other member of the interdisciplinary medical team, Dr. Frasier said.

It appears that pediatric dermatologists are already aware of the importance of protecting children from abuse. During a presentation at the meeting on child abuse and maltreatment in dermatology, not specifically on MSBP, Romy Cho, MD, assistant professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, who is involved with the SCAN Program at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, polled the audience on whether they had ever contacted child protective services (CPS). Almost 80% said they had.

That’s good news for Dr. Frasier. “We have to be willing to contact CPS if we think there’s something going on, and be more open to that because it’s better to be safe than sorry, especially in cases involving children.”

Dr. Frasier and Dr. Cho had no relevant disclosures.

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

Patients starting first-line endocrine and CDK4/6 inhibition for advanced breast cancer show minimal additional cognitive decline beyond what they had already experienced from their neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments, according to new results of the SONIA trial.

“Patients who are diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and start their first-line treatment already show cognitive impairments due to their previous treatments. And luckily, our results show that during first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, further cognitive decline is minimal,” lead investigator Maryse Luijendijk, said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“It is well known that cancer patients can experience cognitive problems, such as memory loss, problems with concentration or with planning, during or following their treatment,” explained Ms. Luijendijk, a PhD candidate in the department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, in Amsterdam. “Much is known about the effects of chemotherapy or irradiation to the brain, but evidence into endocrine therapy is scarce, which is surprising because cognitive effects are biologically plausible.

“We know that estrogen plays an important role in neuronal functioning and that certain types of endocrine therapies are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they may interact with estrogen receptors distributed widely throughout the brain … We know that CDK4/6 inhibitors may either negatively affect cognitive function by increased fatigue due to cytokine release or by interrupting the cell cycle of healthy cells, or positively, as they have been associated with reduced inflammation and remyelination.”

Initial results of the SONIA trial, reported at ASCO last year, examined overall and progression-free survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and no prior treatment for advanced disease. Findings for those who were randomized to treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibition either with or without the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors showed no between-group differences, explained Ms. Luijendijk.

The new results, described as being from the SONIA-EfFECT (Evaluation of cognitive functioning in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine or combined therapy) trial, were based on the authors investigating cognitive functioning in the same cohort used in the SONIA trial plus a control group.

In SONIA-EfFECT, patients who participated in SONIA were asked to identify a female relative or friend without cancer to serve as a cancer-free control. Members of the 130-patient control group were matched for age, education, and computer use.

Participants in the SONIA trial and control group were asked to complete the Amsterdam Cognition Scan, an online neuropsychological test battery at baseline and again after 9 months of treatment. Of those patients from SONIA, 130 had received first-line treatment with aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm A) and 130 had received aromatase inhibitors without CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm B).

Baseline assessments for SONIA-EfFECT were completed for 260 patients from SONIA and the full 130-person control group. Follow-up assessments were completed for 119 members of the control group and 199 patients from the original SONIA trial (108 from Arm A, and 91 from Arm B). Patients from SONIA who switched to second-line treatment within 9 months were not retested.

Patients in both SONIA arms performed significantly worse than the controls on the domains of verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and motor function. In both patient arms and the controls, standardized regression-based change scores showed limited decline in cognitive function over the 9-month interval. Minimal differences in cognitive change were observed between the patients treated with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and between patients and the controls, according to the abstract for SONIA-EfFECT, published in the program for the annual meeting of ASCO.

“At baseline, patients show worse cognitive function across all domains compared to the controls. And as expected, there were no differences between the two treatment arms,” Ms. Luijendijk explained. After 9 months of treatment, the testing showed limited further decline among patients, “and even some improvement on some tests,” with minimal differences between treatment arms “implying that cognitive function does not need to be an aspect when deciding on treatment.”

Ms. Luijendijk reported no relevant disclosures.

Patients starting first-line endocrine and CDK4/6 inhibition for advanced breast cancer show minimal additional cognitive decline beyond what they had already experienced from their neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments, according to new results of the SONIA trial.

“Patients who are diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and start their first-line treatment already show cognitive impairments due to their previous treatments. And luckily, our results show that during first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, further cognitive decline is minimal,” lead investigator Maryse Luijendijk, said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“It is well known that cancer patients can experience cognitive problems, such as memory loss, problems with concentration or with planning, during or following their treatment,” explained Ms. Luijendijk, a PhD candidate in the department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, in Amsterdam. “Much is known about the effects of chemotherapy or irradiation to the brain, but evidence into endocrine therapy is scarce, which is surprising because cognitive effects are biologically plausible.

“We know that estrogen plays an important role in neuronal functioning and that certain types of endocrine therapies are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they may interact with estrogen receptors distributed widely throughout the brain … We know that CDK4/6 inhibitors may either negatively affect cognitive function by increased fatigue due to cytokine release or by interrupting the cell cycle of healthy cells, or positively, as they have been associated with reduced inflammation and remyelination.”

Initial results of the SONIA trial, reported at ASCO last year, examined overall and progression-free survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and no prior treatment for advanced disease. Findings for those who were randomized to treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibition either with or without the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors showed no between-group differences, explained Ms. Luijendijk.

The new results, described as being from the SONIA-EfFECT (Evaluation of cognitive functioning in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine or combined therapy) trial, were based on the authors investigating cognitive functioning in the same cohort used in the SONIA trial plus a control group.

In SONIA-EfFECT, patients who participated in SONIA were asked to identify a female relative or friend without cancer to serve as a cancer-free control. Members of the 130-patient control group were matched for age, education, and computer use.

Participants in the SONIA trial and control group were asked to complete the Amsterdam Cognition Scan, an online neuropsychological test battery at baseline and again after 9 months of treatment. Of those patients from SONIA, 130 had received first-line treatment with aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm A) and 130 had received aromatase inhibitors without CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm B).

Baseline assessments for SONIA-EfFECT were completed for 260 patients from SONIA and the full 130-person control group. Follow-up assessments were completed for 119 members of the control group and 199 patients from the original SONIA trial (108 from Arm A, and 91 from Arm B). Patients from SONIA who switched to second-line treatment within 9 months were not retested.

Patients in both SONIA arms performed significantly worse than the controls on the domains of verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and motor function. In both patient arms and the controls, standardized regression-based change scores showed limited decline in cognitive function over the 9-month interval. Minimal differences in cognitive change were observed between the patients treated with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and between patients and the controls, according to the abstract for SONIA-EfFECT, published in the program for the annual meeting of ASCO.

“At baseline, patients show worse cognitive function across all domains compared to the controls. And as expected, there were no differences between the two treatment arms,” Ms. Luijendijk explained. After 9 months of treatment, the testing showed limited further decline among patients, “and even some improvement on some tests,” with minimal differences between treatment arms “implying that cognitive function does not need to be an aspect when deciding on treatment.”

Ms. Luijendijk reported no relevant disclosures.

Patients starting first-line endocrine and CDK4/6 inhibition for advanced breast cancer show minimal additional cognitive decline beyond what they had already experienced from their neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments, according to new results of the SONIA trial.

“Patients who are diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and start their first-line treatment already show cognitive impairments due to their previous treatments. And luckily, our results show that during first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with endocrine therapy, with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, further cognitive decline is minimal,” lead investigator Maryse Luijendijk, said during her presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“It is well known that cancer patients can experience cognitive problems, such as memory loss, problems with concentration or with planning, during or following their treatment,” explained Ms. Luijendijk, a PhD candidate in the department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, in Amsterdam. “Much is known about the effects of chemotherapy or irradiation to the brain, but evidence into endocrine therapy is scarce, which is surprising because cognitive effects are biologically plausible.

“We know that estrogen plays an important role in neuronal functioning and that certain types of endocrine therapies are able to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they may interact with estrogen receptors distributed widely throughout the brain … We know that CDK4/6 inhibitors may either negatively affect cognitive function by increased fatigue due to cytokine release or by interrupting the cell cycle of healthy cells, or positively, as they have been associated with reduced inflammation and remyelination.”

Initial results of the SONIA trial, reported at ASCO last year, examined overall and progression-free survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and no prior treatment for advanced disease. Findings for those who were randomized to treatment with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibition either with or without the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors showed no between-group differences, explained Ms. Luijendijk.

The new results, described as being from the SONIA-EfFECT (Evaluation of cognitive functioning in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine or combined therapy) trial, were based on the authors investigating cognitive functioning in the same cohort used in the SONIA trial plus a control group.

In SONIA-EfFECT, patients who participated in SONIA were asked to identify a female relative or friend without cancer to serve as a cancer-free control. Members of the 130-patient control group were matched for age, education, and computer use.

Participants in the SONIA trial and control group were asked to complete the Amsterdam Cognition Scan, an online neuropsychological test battery at baseline and again after 9 months of treatment. Of those patients from SONIA, 130 had received first-line treatment with aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm A) and 130 had received aromatase inhibitors without CDK4/6 inhibition (Arm B).

Baseline assessments for SONIA-EfFECT were completed for 260 patients from SONIA and the full 130-person control group. Follow-up assessments were completed for 119 members of the control group and 199 patients from the original SONIA trial (108 from Arm A, and 91 from Arm B). Patients from SONIA who switched to second-line treatment within 9 months were not retested.

Patients in both SONIA arms performed significantly worse than the controls on the domains of verbal memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and motor function. In both patient arms and the controls, standardized regression-based change scores showed limited decline in cognitive function over the 9-month interval. Minimal differences in cognitive change were observed between the patients treated with and without CDK4/6 inhibitors, and between patients and the controls, according to the abstract for SONIA-EfFECT, published in the program for the annual meeting of ASCO.

“At baseline, patients show worse cognitive function across all domains compared to the controls. And as expected, there were no differences between the two treatment arms,” Ms. Luijendijk explained. After 9 months of treatment, the testing showed limited further decline among patients, “and even some improvement on some tests,” with minimal differences between treatment arms “implying that cognitive function does not need to be an aspect when deciding on treatment.”

Ms. Luijendijk reported no relevant disclosures.

HELSINKI, FINLAND — A new gene for early-onset Parkinson’s disease has been identified, a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.

A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.

“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted. 

“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Managing Patient Expectations

Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia. 

In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.

In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.

While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland. 

The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted. 

“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”

Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations. 
 

Clinical Relevance on the Way?

While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.

For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease. 

This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”

This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein. 

She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.

“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted. 

“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised. 

“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.

“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset. 

Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — A new gene for early-onset Parkinson’s disease has been identified, a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.

A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.

“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted. 

“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Managing Patient Expectations

Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia. 

In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.

In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.

While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland. 

The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted. 

“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”

Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations. 
 

Clinical Relevance on the Way?

While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.

For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease. 

This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”

This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein. 

She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.

“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted. 

“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised. 

“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.

“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset. 

Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — A new gene for early-onset Parkinson’s disease has been identified, a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.

A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.

“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted. 

“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Managing Patient Expectations

Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia. 

In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.

In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.

While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland. 

The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted. 

“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”

Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations. 
 

Clinical Relevance on the Way?

While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.

For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease. 

This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”

This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein. 

She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.

“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted. 

“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised. 

“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.

“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset. 

Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.

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

During a lecture at the 2024 International Congress on Obesity in São Paulo, Brazil, Dr. Carel Le Roux, a South African researcher, reflected on the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Therapy (SOPHIA) project. The effort, of which Dr. Le Roux is a leader, involves using federated data and reframing obesity as a set of diseases, each with its own peculiarities and treatment needs.

A collaborative research initiative led by the European Union, the SOPHIA project is a public-private partnership that brings together healthcare professionals, universities, industry leaders, and patient organizations to rethink how we understand and treat obesity, considering factors beyond body mass index (BMI).

“We need to ask ourselves, ‘Is obesity a disease? Or, in fact, does ‘obesity’ refer to multiple diseases that lead to excess adipose tissue?’ ” Dr. Le Roux asked at the beginning of his presentation.

The researcher, who is also the director of the Obesity and Metabolic Medicine Group, stated that obesity can no longer be seen as a single homogeneous pathology but rather should be viewed as clinical conditions affecting various subpopulations that respond differently to treatments.

Patients are currently diagnosed with obesity based on BMI value or waist measurement, as recommended by current clinical guidelines, but this method contributes to treating obesity subtypes as if they were identical.

“By taking into account the patient’s specificities, we can identify individuals who are likely to progress rapidly with the disease and those who will respond well to targeted interventions,” said Dr. Le Roux, emphasizing that this approach also contributes to reducing public health system costs.

Researchers proposed creating a map that allows the visualization of the distinct characteristics of patients with obesity, such as the presence of associated diseases like hypertension and diabetes. One of the main challenges of the project was finding a way to share sensitive data among SOPHIA partners without compromising individual privacy. The solution was the creation of a federated database.

In practice, this system allows academic and industry partners to send data to a central server, which keeps them protected. “We wanted to reach the optimal point, where we can have maximum utility and maximum privacy protection using technology. Researchers can then obtain statistics, enabling the analysis of large data sets without compromising security,” Dr. Le Roux explained.

Most patients analyzed in the project fall into the main group, where “the higher the weight, the greater the risk” for associated diseases, he added. However, the project allows for specifically visualizing patients with alterations related to high blood pressure, liver function, lipid profile, blood glucose, and inflammation.

“Subclassifying diseases helps us better understand the various mechanisms by which these pathologies arise and why some individuals exhibit unexpected phenotypic patterns of increased susceptibility or resilience. For example, patients with inflammation changes have a much higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and liver failure,” said Dr. Le Roux.

In addition to visualizing the associated diseases of each participant, SOPHIA, in which 30 partners in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States participate, also features treatment overlap, which allows researchers to track individual responses to the treatment.

“With this overlap, we confirm something that many know: When treating people with type 2 diabetes, whether through lifestyle changes, medication, or surgery, weight loss is lower. But, to our surprise, we found that patients with inflammation-related changes had greater weight loss. This finding tells us that some groups benefit more, and others less,” said Dr. Le Roux.

This analysis is particularly interesting when it comes to bariatric surgery, he continued. “Often, the surgeon performs an incredibly well-done gastric bypass, and the response is not as expected. In this case, we can say that it is purely biology,” said Dr. Le Roux, who concluded the presentation by discussing the benefits of this approach for good patient counseling.

“When we talk about ‘obesities’ and not ‘obesity,’ we can also conduct our consultations more carefully by explaining to our patients that if they do not respond to treatment, it is not their fault, not because they did something wrong, but because of something that is not usually taken into account, such as the presence of comorbidities, or even personal characteristics and lifestyle, such as age and smoking,” said Dr. Le Roux.

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

During a lecture at the 2024 International Congress on Obesity in São Paulo, Brazil, Dr. Carel Le Roux, a South African researcher, reflected on the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Therapy (SOPHIA) project. The effort, of which Dr. Le Roux is a leader, involves using federated data and reframing obesity as a set of diseases, each with its own peculiarities and treatment needs.

A collaborative research initiative led by the European Union, the SOPHIA project is a public-private partnership that brings together healthcare professionals, universities, industry leaders, and patient organizations to rethink how we understand and treat obesity, considering factors beyond body mass index (BMI).

“We need to ask ourselves, ‘Is obesity a disease? Or, in fact, does ‘obesity’ refer to multiple diseases that lead to excess adipose tissue?’ ” Dr. Le Roux asked at the beginning of his presentation.

The researcher, who is also the director of the Obesity and Metabolic Medicine Group, stated that obesity can no longer be seen as a single homogeneous pathology but rather should be viewed as clinical conditions affecting various subpopulations that respond differently to treatments.

Patients are currently diagnosed with obesity based on BMI value or waist measurement, as recommended by current clinical guidelines, but this method contributes to treating obesity subtypes as if they were identical.

“By taking into account the patient’s specificities, we can identify individuals who are likely to progress rapidly with the disease and those who will respond well to targeted interventions,” said Dr. Le Roux, emphasizing that this approach also contributes to reducing public health system costs.

Researchers proposed creating a map that allows the visualization of the distinct characteristics of patients with obesity, such as the presence of associated diseases like hypertension and diabetes. One of the main challenges of the project was finding a way to share sensitive data among SOPHIA partners without compromising individual privacy. The solution was the creation of a federated database.

In practice, this system allows academic and industry partners to send data to a central server, which keeps them protected. “We wanted to reach the optimal point, where we can have maximum utility and maximum privacy protection using technology. Researchers can then obtain statistics, enabling the analysis of large data sets without compromising security,” Dr. Le Roux explained.

Most patients analyzed in the project fall into the main group, where “the higher the weight, the greater the risk” for associated diseases, he added. However, the project allows for specifically visualizing patients with alterations related to high blood pressure, liver function, lipid profile, blood glucose, and inflammation.

“Subclassifying diseases helps us better understand the various mechanisms by which these pathologies arise and why some individuals exhibit unexpected phenotypic patterns of increased susceptibility or resilience. For example, patients with inflammation changes have a much higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and liver failure,” said Dr. Le Roux.

In addition to visualizing the associated diseases of each participant, SOPHIA, in which 30 partners in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States participate, also features treatment overlap, which allows researchers to track individual responses to the treatment.

“With this overlap, we confirm something that many know: When treating people with type 2 diabetes, whether through lifestyle changes, medication, or surgery, weight loss is lower. But, to our surprise, we found that patients with inflammation-related changes had greater weight loss. This finding tells us that some groups benefit more, and others less,” said Dr. Le Roux.

This analysis is particularly interesting when it comes to bariatric surgery, he continued. “Often, the surgeon performs an incredibly well-done gastric bypass, and the response is not as expected. In this case, we can say that it is purely biology,” said Dr. Le Roux, who concluded the presentation by discussing the benefits of this approach for good patient counseling.

“When we talk about ‘obesities’ and not ‘obesity,’ we can also conduct our consultations more carefully by explaining to our patients that if they do not respond to treatment, it is not their fault, not because they did something wrong, but because of something that is not usually taken into account, such as the presence of comorbidities, or even personal characteristics and lifestyle, such as age and smoking,” said Dr. Le Roux.

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

During a lecture at the 2024 International Congress on Obesity in São Paulo, Brazil, Dr. Carel Le Roux, a South African researcher, reflected on the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Therapy (SOPHIA) project. The effort, of which Dr. Le Roux is a leader, involves using federated data and reframing obesity as a set of diseases, each with its own peculiarities and treatment needs.

A collaborative research initiative led by the European Union, the SOPHIA project is a public-private partnership that brings together healthcare professionals, universities, industry leaders, and patient organizations to rethink how we understand and treat obesity, considering factors beyond body mass index (BMI).

“We need to ask ourselves, ‘Is obesity a disease? Or, in fact, does ‘obesity’ refer to multiple diseases that lead to excess adipose tissue?’ ” Dr. Le Roux asked at the beginning of his presentation.

The researcher, who is also the director of the Obesity and Metabolic Medicine Group, stated that obesity can no longer be seen as a single homogeneous pathology but rather should be viewed as clinical conditions affecting various subpopulations that respond differently to treatments.

Patients are currently diagnosed with obesity based on BMI value or waist measurement, as recommended by current clinical guidelines, but this method contributes to treating obesity subtypes as if they were identical.

“By taking into account the patient’s specificities, we can identify individuals who are likely to progress rapidly with the disease and those who will respond well to targeted interventions,” said Dr. Le Roux, emphasizing that this approach also contributes to reducing public health system costs.

Researchers proposed creating a map that allows the visualization of the distinct characteristics of patients with obesity, such as the presence of associated diseases like hypertension and diabetes. One of the main challenges of the project was finding a way to share sensitive data among SOPHIA partners without compromising individual privacy. The solution was the creation of a federated database.

In practice, this system allows academic and industry partners to send data to a central server, which keeps them protected. “We wanted to reach the optimal point, where we can have maximum utility and maximum privacy protection using technology. Researchers can then obtain statistics, enabling the analysis of large data sets without compromising security,” Dr. Le Roux explained.

Most patients analyzed in the project fall into the main group, where “the higher the weight, the greater the risk” for associated diseases, he added. However, the project allows for specifically visualizing patients with alterations related to high blood pressure, liver function, lipid profile, blood glucose, and inflammation.

“Subclassifying diseases helps us better understand the various mechanisms by which these pathologies arise and why some individuals exhibit unexpected phenotypic patterns of increased susceptibility or resilience. For example, patients with inflammation changes have a much higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and liver failure,” said Dr. Le Roux.

In addition to visualizing the associated diseases of each participant, SOPHIA, in which 30 partners in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States participate, also features treatment overlap, which allows researchers to track individual responses to the treatment.

“With this overlap, we confirm something that many know: When treating people with type 2 diabetes, whether through lifestyle changes, medication, or surgery, weight loss is lower. But, to our surprise, we found that patients with inflammation-related changes had greater weight loss. This finding tells us that some groups benefit more, and others less,” said Dr. Le Roux.

This analysis is particularly interesting when it comes to bariatric surgery, he continued. “Often, the surgeon performs an incredibly well-done gastric bypass, and the response is not as expected. In this case, we can say that it is purely biology,” said Dr. Le Roux, who concluded the presentation by discussing the benefits of this approach for good patient counseling.

“When we talk about ‘obesities’ and not ‘obesity,’ we can also conduct our consultations more carefully by explaining to our patients that if they do not respond to treatment, it is not their fault, not because they did something wrong, but because of something that is not usually taken into account, such as the presence of comorbidities, or even personal characteristics and lifestyle, such as age and smoking,” said Dr. Le Roux.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say. 

“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.

The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned. 

Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said. 

In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age. 

Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”

To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets. 

It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway. 
 

Start With Folic Acid

One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy. 

When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.

The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid. 

“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy. 
 

Choosing the Right ASM 

The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring. 

Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.

“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.

The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added. 

This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.

Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.

Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.

On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.

“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said. 
 

Dose Optimization 

Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.

He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.

To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.

The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.

Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say. 

“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.

The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned. 

Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said. 

In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age. 

Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”

To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets. 

It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway. 
 

Start With Folic Acid

One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy. 

When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.

The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid. 

“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy. 
 

Choosing the Right ASM 

The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring. 

Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.

“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.

The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added. 

This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.

Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.

Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.

On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.

“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said. 
 

Dose Optimization 

Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.

He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.

To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.

The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.

Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say. 

“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.

The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned. 

Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said. 

In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age. 

Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”

To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets. 

It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway. 
 

Start With Folic Acid

One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy. 

When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.

The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid. 

“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy. 
 

Choosing the Right ASM 

The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring. 

Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.

“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.

The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added. 

This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.

Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.

Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.

On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.

“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said. 
 

Dose Optimization 

Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.

He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.

To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.

The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.

Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.

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

CHICAGO — Chinese investigators have reported a potentially new first-line treatment option for the up to 30% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients with increased expression of the oncogenes MYC and BCLC.

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), they announced that combining the histone deacetylase inhibitor tucidinostat with standard R-CHOP chemotherapy in previously untreated “double-expresser” patients improved complete response and event-free survival (EFS) rates over R-CHOP alone.

The trial, dubbed DEB, is the first phase 3 investigation to confirm the benefit of combination treatment with an epigenetic agent for such patients, lead investigator and study presenter Weili Zhao, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, told her audience.

“Tucidinostat plus R-CHOP could be a new frontline treatment option in this patient population,” Dr. Zhao said.

However, the agent is not available in the United States, at least for now. It is approved in China for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and HER2-negative breast cancer and in Japan for PTCL and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.

Dr. Zhao said that tucidinostat was also conditionally approved for DLBCL in China recently, based on the strength of the DEB results.

Study discussant Peter Riedell, MD, a hematologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, was cautious on several points.

First, there’s been no overall survival benefit in the trial, but follow-up so far has been short, at a median of 13.9 months, and Dr. Zhao reported interim, not final, results.

Dr. Riedell also noted that there were more grade 3 or worse adverse events, particularly hematologic side effects, hypokalemia, and pneumonia, with tucidinostat add-on in DEB.

Other outstanding questions include the applicability of the findings to non-Chinese patients and the effect of adding tucidinostat to another common DLCBL chemotherapy regimen, pola-R-CHP, which is being increasingly used in the United States for higher-risk disease, which includes double-expressers of the MYC and BCLC oncogenes.

DEB equally randomized 423 patients at 40 centers in China to either six cycles of R-CHOP with tucidinostat 20 μg twice weekly or R-CHOP with placebo. Complete responders went on to either tucidinostat or placebo maintenance treatment for up to 24 weeks. Subjects had an International Prognostic Index score of at least 2.

Out of a total of 152 EFS events, 64 (30.3%) were in the tucidinostat group and 88 (41.5%) were in the placebo group; 24-month EFS was 58.9% with tucidinostat and 46.2% with R-CHOP alone (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .018).

Meanwhile, the complete response rate with tucidinostat was 73.0% versus 61.8% (P = .014).

Although there were more higher-grade adverse events in the experimental arm, most patients were able to tolerate and complete the planned treatment cycles.

The study was funded by tucidinostat maker Chipscreen Biosciences. Dr. Zhao reported no disclosures. Dr. Riedell disclosed ties with numerous companies, including BeiGene (a partner of Chipscreen) and Novartis.

CHICAGO — Chinese investigators have reported a potentially new first-line treatment option for the up to 30% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients with increased expression of the oncogenes MYC and BCLC.

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), they announced that combining the histone deacetylase inhibitor tucidinostat with standard R-CHOP chemotherapy in previously untreated “double-expresser” patients improved complete response and event-free survival (EFS) rates over R-CHOP alone.

The trial, dubbed DEB, is the first phase 3 investigation to confirm the benefit of combination treatment with an epigenetic agent for such patients, lead investigator and study presenter Weili Zhao, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, told her audience.

“Tucidinostat plus R-CHOP could be a new frontline treatment option in this patient population,” Dr. Zhao said.

However, the agent is not available in the United States, at least for now. It is approved in China for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and HER2-negative breast cancer and in Japan for PTCL and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.

Dr. Zhao said that tucidinostat was also conditionally approved for DLBCL in China recently, based on the strength of the DEB results.

Study discussant Peter Riedell, MD, a hematologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, was cautious on several points.

First, there’s been no overall survival benefit in the trial, but follow-up so far has been short, at a median of 13.9 months, and Dr. Zhao reported interim, not final, results.

Dr. Riedell also noted that there were more grade 3 or worse adverse events, particularly hematologic side effects, hypokalemia, and pneumonia, with tucidinostat add-on in DEB.

Other outstanding questions include the applicability of the findings to non-Chinese patients and the effect of adding tucidinostat to another common DLCBL chemotherapy regimen, pola-R-CHP, which is being increasingly used in the United States for higher-risk disease, which includes double-expressers of the MYC and BCLC oncogenes.

DEB equally randomized 423 patients at 40 centers in China to either six cycles of R-CHOP with tucidinostat 20 μg twice weekly or R-CHOP with placebo. Complete responders went on to either tucidinostat or placebo maintenance treatment for up to 24 weeks. Subjects had an International Prognostic Index score of at least 2.

Out of a total of 152 EFS events, 64 (30.3%) were in the tucidinostat group and 88 (41.5%) were in the placebo group; 24-month EFS was 58.9% with tucidinostat and 46.2% with R-CHOP alone (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .018).

Meanwhile, the complete response rate with tucidinostat was 73.0% versus 61.8% (P = .014).

Although there were more higher-grade adverse events in the experimental arm, most patients were able to tolerate and complete the planned treatment cycles.

The study was funded by tucidinostat maker Chipscreen Biosciences. Dr. Zhao reported no disclosures. Dr. Riedell disclosed ties with numerous companies, including BeiGene (a partner of Chipscreen) and Novartis.

CHICAGO — Chinese investigators have reported a potentially new first-line treatment option for the up to 30% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients with increased expression of the oncogenes MYC and BCLC.

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), they announced that combining the histone deacetylase inhibitor tucidinostat with standard R-CHOP chemotherapy in previously untreated “double-expresser” patients improved complete response and event-free survival (EFS) rates over R-CHOP alone.

The trial, dubbed DEB, is the first phase 3 investigation to confirm the benefit of combination treatment with an epigenetic agent for such patients, lead investigator and study presenter Weili Zhao, MD, PhD, a hematologist at the Shanghai Institute of Hematology, told her audience.

“Tucidinostat plus R-CHOP could be a new frontline treatment option in this patient population,” Dr. Zhao said.

However, the agent is not available in the United States, at least for now. It is approved in China for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) and HER2-negative breast cancer and in Japan for PTCL and adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma.

Dr. Zhao said that tucidinostat was also conditionally approved for DLBCL in China recently, based on the strength of the DEB results.

Study discussant Peter Riedell, MD, a hematologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, was cautious on several points.

First, there’s been no overall survival benefit in the trial, but follow-up so far has been short, at a median of 13.9 months, and Dr. Zhao reported interim, not final, results.

Dr. Riedell also noted that there were more grade 3 or worse adverse events, particularly hematologic side effects, hypokalemia, and pneumonia, with tucidinostat add-on in DEB.

Other outstanding questions include the applicability of the findings to non-Chinese patients and the effect of adding tucidinostat to another common DLCBL chemotherapy regimen, pola-R-CHP, which is being increasingly used in the United States for higher-risk disease, which includes double-expressers of the MYC and BCLC oncogenes.

DEB equally randomized 423 patients at 40 centers in China to either six cycles of R-CHOP with tucidinostat 20 μg twice weekly or R-CHOP with placebo. Complete responders went on to either tucidinostat or placebo maintenance treatment for up to 24 weeks. Subjects had an International Prognostic Index score of at least 2.

Out of a total of 152 EFS events, 64 (30.3%) were in the tucidinostat group and 88 (41.5%) were in the placebo group; 24-month EFS was 58.9% with tucidinostat and 46.2% with R-CHOP alone (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .018).

Meanwhile, the complete response rate with tucidinostat was 73.0% versus 61.8% (P = .014).

Although there were more higher-grade adverse events in the experimental arm, most patients were able to tolerate and complete the planned treatment cycles.

The study was funded by tucidinostat maker Chipscreen Biosciences. Dr. Zhao reported no disclosures. Dr. Riedell disclosed ties with numerous companies, including BeiGene (a partner of Chipscreen) and Novartis.

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.

In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.


Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?

Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.

The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.


Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?

Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.


Q: What’s new about this kind of research?

Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.


Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?

Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.

In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.

This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.


Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?

Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.

[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]



Q: What makes this drug unique?

Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.



Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?

Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.

This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.



Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?

Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.

In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.


Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?

Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.

The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.


Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?

Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.


Q: What’s new about this kind of research?

Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.


Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?

Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.

In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.

This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.


Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?

Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.

[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]



Q: What makes this drug unique?

Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.



Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?

Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.

This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.



Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?

Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.

In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.


Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?

Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.

The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.


Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?

Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.


Q: What’s new about this kind of research?

Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.


Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?

Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.

In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.

This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.


Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?

Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.

[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]



Q: What makes this drug unique?

Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.



Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?

Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.

This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.



Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?

Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

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

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

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

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

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

MILAN — Survodutide, an investigational dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “exceptional improvement in disease activity and fibrosis” in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), according to phase 2 results presented here at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

The data were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine .

The primary endpoint data, reported earlier this year in a press release, showed that up to 83% of participants on survodutide showed a statistically significant improvement in MASH compared with those on placebo (18.2%) based on paired biopsy results.

In addition, 75% of patients treated with survodutide experienced resolution of MASH with no worsening of fibrosis compared with 15% of patients on placebo, and in patients with F2/F3 fibrosis, 64.5% achieved improvement in fibrosis without worsening of MASH, reported Arun J. Sanyal, MD, principal study investigator and director of the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, VCU School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

What’s so amazing is that this “exceptional improvement” is after 48 weeks of therapy with a class of molecule that is already known to also have cardiometabolic benefits, Dr. Sanyal said in an interview.

“At the highest dose of survodutide [6.0 mg], two thirds of patients in whom we have biopsy data, at both the beginning and the end, actually showed fibrosis regression within 48 weeks,” he said. “This is pretty dramatic.”
 

Efficacy and Safety of Survodutide

A total of 293 participants with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of survodutide 2.4 mg (n = 73), 4.8 mg (n = 72), or 6.0 mg (n = 74) or placebo (n = 74).

Around half of study participants were women, with mean age around 50 years and a body mass index around 35 kg/m². Overall, 26%-30% had type 2 diabetes, 24%-36% had F2 fibrosis, and 23%-30% had F3 fibrosis. The total Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score was 5.2.

After completing a 24-week rapid-dose-escalation phase, participants followed a 24-week maintenance phase. Histologic improvement (reduction) in MASH without worsening of fibrosis after 48 weeks of treatment comprised the primary endpoint, whereas a reduction in liver fat content by at least 30% and biopsy-assessed reduction in fibrosis by at least one stage were among the secondary endpoints.

The main analyses of the trial were based on two treatment sets: Actual treatment (the actual dose received at the start of the maintenance phase; per protocol) and planned treatment (the maintenance dose assigned to participants at randomization). Dr. Sanyal mainly reported results based on actual treatment, which were used for the primary analysis.

The overall primary endpoint data, including nonresponders, showed a 47% improvement in MASH in the 2.4-mg treatment group, 62% in the 4.8 mg group, and 43% in the 6.0-mg group compared with 13.5% in the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, 50% of patients on 2.4- and 6-mg doses experienced a statistically significant improvement in fibrosis (F1-F3) without worsening of MASH. In patients with F2/F3 fibrosis, 64.5% of participants in the 6-mg survodutide group showed improvement vs 25.9% in the placebo group.

Reduction in liver fat by at least 30% was achieved by up to 87% in the 6-mg group according to MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction; when nonresponders were included, the percentage was 76.9% of the 6-mg group. Other outcomes included weight loss and reductions in A1c.

The results did not differ markedly between doses, which “is really exciting news,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Patients who are intolerant of the highest dose can switch to a lower dose without a big loss of efficacy, he said, adding that even the low dose was sufficient to get near maximal glucagon effect.

Adverse events were similar between survodutide and placebo, except for gastrointestinal events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. The occurrence of serious adverse events also was similar between survodutide and placebo.

Discontinuation due to adverse events was 20% across all the survodutide groups (with 16% due to gastrointestinal events) vs 3% in the placebo group.
 

Dual Agonist vs Monoagonist Therapy

The dual agonist approach may confer clinical advantages over GLP-1 receptor monoagonist pharmacotherapies for MASH.

“GLP has no receptors in the liver, so all its effects are mediated outside the liver, particularly for weight loss and improvement in metabolic status, increase in insulin secretion and sensitivity, and overall systemic glycemia,” Dr. Sanyal explained.

“People with established fibrosis take longer to respond in terms of downstream liver scarring with extrahepatic changes alone,” he added.

With “glucagon directly targeting the liver, we believe this reduces oxidative stress and possibly stimulates FGF-21 secretion [liver-derived factor that regulates lipid and glucose metabolism] in the liver, so there are likely multiple mechanisms driving the antifibrogenic benefits,” Dr. Sanyal said.

In comparison, the study authors highlighted that data on the GLP-1 receptor monoagonist semaglutide suggest a significantly higher proportion of patients on semaglutide achieve MASH resolution than those on placebo but that it does not result in “a significantly higher percentage of patients with improvement in fibrosis stage.

“It might be that it takes longer to get an effect in the liver with semaglutide,” Dr. Sanyal said.

By year-end, we’ll know how the GLP-1 alone approach (eg, semaglutide) and the dual agonist approach work, and we’ll eventually have data on triple agonists, Dr. Sanyal added.
 

The Burden of Liver Disease

Comoderator Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College, London, England, remarked on the importance of new drugs, including survodutide, in reducing the burden of steatotic liver disease.

Approximately one third of the world’s population and between 7% and 9% of children have steatotic liver disease, she noted. The buildup of fat causes inflammation and scarring of the liver, which may then progress to liver cirrhosis and primary liver cancers.

Survodutide offers much hope “as a drug that will reduce both liver inflammation and scarring, while also providing the benefit of improved diabetic control,” Dr. Shawcross said.

Reflecting on the dual agonism, she said that both the glucagon and GLP-1 receptors are critical to controlling metabolic functions.

Survodutide is currently being investigated in five phase 3 studies for people living with overweight and obesity, both of which are associated with MASH. There is also a trial looking at people with overweight/obesity with confirmed or presumed diagnosis of MASH, according to a company press release.

Dr. Sanyal reported grants, consultancy fees, and speaker fees from a wide range of companies working in the field of liver medicine. Dr. Shawcross reported no conflicts in relation to this drug and advisory board membership/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.
 

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

MILAN — Survodutide, an investigational dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “exceptional improvement in disease activity and fibrosis” in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), according to phase 2 results presented here at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

The data were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine .

The primary endpoint data, reported earlier this year in a press release, showed that up to 83% of participants on survodutide showed a statistically significant improvement in MASH compared with those on placebo (18.2%) based on paired biopsy results.

In addition, 75% of patients treated with survodutide experienced resolution of MASH with no worsening of fibrosis compared with 15% of patients on placebo, and in patients with F2/F3 fibrosis, 64.5% achieved improvement in fibrosis without worsening of MASH, reported Arun J. Sanyal, MD, principal study investigator and director of the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, VCU School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

What’s so amazing is that this “exceptional improvement” is after 48 weeks of therapy with a class of molecule that is already known to also have cardiometabolic benefits, Dr. Sanyal said in an interview.

“At the highest dose of survodutide [6.0 mg], two thirds of patients in whom we have biopsy data, at both the beginning and the end, actually showed fibrosis regression within 48 weeks,” he said. “This is pretty dramatic.”
 

Efficacy and Safety of Survodutide

A total of 293 participants with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of survodutide 2.4 mg (n = 73), 4.8 mg (n = 72), or 6.0 mg (n = 74) or placebo (n = 74).

Around half of study participants were women, with mean age around 50 years and a body mass index around 35 kg/m². Overall, 26%-30% had type 2 diabetes, 24%-36% had F2 fibrosis, and 23%-30% had F3 fibrosis. The total Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score was 5.2.

After completing a 24-week rapid-dose-escalation phase, participants followed a 24-week maintenance phase. Histologic improvement (reduction) in MASH without worsening of fibrosis after 48 weeks of treatment comprised the primary endpoint, whereas a reduction in liver fat content by at least 30% and biopsy-assessed reduction in fibrosis by at least one stage were among the secondary endpoints.

The main analyses of the trial were based on two treatment sets: Actual treatment (the actual dose received at the start of the maintenance phase; per protocol) and planned treatment (the maintenance dose assigned to participants at randomization). Dr. Sanyal mainly reported results based on actual treatment, which were used for the primary analysis.

The overall primary endpoint data, including nonresponders, showed a 47% improvement in MASH in the 2.4-mg treatment group, 62% in the 4.8 mg group, and 43% in the 6.0-mg group compared with 13.5% in the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, 50% of patients on 2.4- and 6-mg doses experienced a statistically significant improvement in fibrosis (F1-F3) without worsening of MASH. In patients with F2/F3 fibrosis, 64.5% of participants in the 6-mg survodutide group showed improvement vs 25.9% in the placebo group.

Reduction in liver fat by at least 30% was achieved by up to 87% in the 6-mg group according to MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction; when nonresponders were included, the percentage was 76.9% of the 6-mg group. Other outcomes included weight loss and reductions in A1c.

The results did not differ markedly between doses, which “is really exciting news,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Patients who are intolerant of the highest dose can switch to a lower dose without a big loss of efficacy, he said, adding that even the low dose was sufficient to get near maximal glucagon effect.

Adverse events were similar between survodutide and placebo, except for gastrointestinal events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. The occurrence of serious adverse events also was similar between survodutide and placebo.

Discontinuation due to adverse events was 20% across all the survodutide groups (with 16% due to gastrointestinal events) vs 3% in the placebo group.
 

Dual Agonist vs Monoagonist Therapy

The dual agonist approach may confer clinical advantages over GLP-1 receptor monoagonist pharmacotherapies for MASH.

“GLP has no receptors in the liver, so all its effects are mediated outside the liver, particularly for weight loss and improvement in metabolic status, increase in insulin secretion and sensitivity, and overall systemic glycemia,” Dr. Sanyal explained.

“People with established fibrosis take longer to respond in terms of downstream liver scarring with extrahepatic changes alone,” he added.

With “glucagon directly targeting the liver, we believe this reduces oxidative stress and possibly stimulates FGF-21 secretion [liver-derived factor that regulates lipid and glucose metabolism] in the liver, so there are likely multiple mechanisms driving the antifibrogenic benefits,” Dr. Sanyal said.

In comparison, the study authors highlighted that data on the GLP-1 receptor monoagonist semaglutide suggest a significantly higher proportion of patients on semaglutide achieve MASH resolution than those on placebo but that it does not result in “a significantly higher percentage of patients with improvement in fibrosis stage.

“It might be that it takes longer to get an effect in the liver with semaglutide,” Dr. Sanyal said.

By year-end, we’ll know how the GLP-1 alone approach (eg, semaglutide) and the dual agonist approach work, and we’ll eventually have data on triple agonists, Dr. Sanyal added.
 

The Burden of Liver Disease

Comoderator Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College, London, England, remarked on the importance of new drugs, including survodutide, in reducing the burden of steatotic liver disease.

Approximately one third of the world’s population and between 7% and 9% of children have steatotic liver disease, she noted. The buildup of fat causes inflammation and scarring of the liver, which may then progress to liver cirrhosis and primary liver cancers.

Survodutide offers much hope “as a drug that will reduce both liver inflammation and scarring, while also providing the benefit of improved diabetic control,” Dr. Shawcross said.

Reflecting on the dual agonism, she said that both the glucagon and GLP-1 receptors are critical to controlling metabolic functions.

Survodutide is currently being investigated in five phase 3 studies for people living with overweight and obesity, both of which are associated with MASH. There is also a trial looking at people with overweight/obesity with confirmed or presumed diagnosis of MASH, according to a company press release.

Dr. Sanyal reported grants, consultancy fees, and speaker fees from a wide range of companies working in the field of liver medicine. Dr. Shawcross reported no conflicts in relation to this drug and advisory board membership/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.
 

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

MILAN — Survodutide, an investigational dual glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “exceptional improvement in disease activity and fibrosis” in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), according to phase 2 results presented here at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

The data were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine .

The primary endpoint data, reported earlier this year in a press release, showed that up to 83% of participants on survodutide showed a statistically significant improvement in MASH compared with those on placebo (18.2%) based on paired biopsy results.

In addition, 75% of patients treated with survodutide experienced resolution of MASH with no worsening of fibrosis compared with 15% of patients on placebo, and in patients with F2/F3 fibrosis, 64.5% achieved improvement in fibrosis without worsening of MASH, reported Arun J. Sanyal, MD, principal study investigator and director of the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, VCU School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

What’s so amazing is that this “exceptional improvement” is after 48 weeks of therapy with a class of molecule that is already known to also have cardiometabolic benefits, Dr. Sanyal said in an interview.

“At the highest dose of survodutide [6.0 mg], two thirds of patients in whom we have biopsy data, at both the beginning and the end, actually showed fibrosis regression within 48 weeks,” he said. “This is pretty dramatic.”
 

Efficacy and Safety of Survodutide

A total of 293 participants with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of survodutide 2.4 mg (n = 73), 4.8 mg (n = 72), or 6.0 mg (n = 74) or placebo (n = 74).

Around half of study participants were women, with mean age around 50 years and a body mass index around 35 kg/m². Overall, 26%-30% had type 2 diabetes, 24%-36% had F2 fibrosis, and 23%-30% had F3 fibrosis. The total Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score was 5.2.

After completing a 24-week rapid-dose-escalation phase, participants followed a 24-week maintenance phase. Histologic improvement (reduction) in MASH without worsening of fibrosis after 48 weeks of treatment comprised the primary endpoint, whereas a reduction in liver fat content by at least 30% and biopsy-assessed reduction in fibrosis by at least one stage were among the secondary endpoints.

The main analyses of the trial were based on two treatment sets: Actual treatment (the actual dose received at the start of the maintenance phase; per protocol) and planned treatment (the maintenance dose assigned to participants at randomization). Dr. Sanyal mainly reported results based on actual treatment, which were used for the primary analysis.

The overall primary endpoint data, including nonresponders, showed a 47% improvement in MASH in the 2.4-mg treatment group, 62% in the 4.8 mg group, and 43% in the 6.0-mg group compared with 13.5% in the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, 50% of patients on 2.4- and 6-mg doses experienced a statistically significant improvement in fibrosis (F1-F3) without worsening of MASH. In patients with F2/F3 fibrosis, 64.5% of participants in the 6-mg survodutide group showed improvement vs 25.9% in the placebo group.

Reduction in liver fat by at least 30% was achieved by up to 87% in the 6-mg group according to MRI-estimated proton density fat fraction; when nonresponders were included, the percentage was 76.9% of the 6-mg group. Other outcomes included weight loss and reductions in A1c.

The results did not differ markedly between doses, which “is really exciting news,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Patients who are intolerant of the highest dose can switch to a lower dose without a big loss of efficacy, he said, adding that even the low dose was sufficient to get near maximal glucagon effect.

Adverse events were similar between survodutide and placebo, except for gastrointestinal events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. The occurrence of serious adverse events also was similar between survodutide and placebo.

Discontinuation due to adverse events was 20% across all the survodutide groups (with 16% due to gastrointestinal events) vs 3% in the placebo group.
 

Dual Agonist vs Monoagonist Therapy

The dual agonist approach may confer clinical advantages over GLP-1 receptor monoagonist pharmacotherapies for MASH.

“GLP has no receptors in the liver, so all its effects are mediated outside the liver, particularly for weight loss and improvement in metabolic status, increase in insulin secretion and sensitivity, and overall systemic glycemia,” Dr. Sanyal explained.

“People with established fibrosis take longer to respond in terms of downstream liver scarring with extrahepatic changes alone,” he added.

With “glucagon directly targeting the liver, we believe this reduces oxidative stress and possibly stimulates FGF-21 secretion [liver-derived factor that regulates lipid and glucose metabolism] in the liver, so there are likely multiple mechanisms driving the antifibrogenic benefits,” Dr. Sanyal said.

In comparison, the study authors highlighted that data on the GLP-1 receptor monoagonist semaglutide suggest a significantly higher proportion of patients on semaglutide achieve MASH resolution than those on placebo but that it does not result in “a significantly higher percentage of patients with improvement in fibrosis stage.

“It might be that it takes longer to get an effect in the liver with semaglutide,” Dr. Sanyal said.

By year-end, we’ll know how the GLP-1 alone approach (eg, semaglutide) and the dual agonist approach work, and we’ll eventually have data on triple agonists, Dr. Sanyal added.
 

The Burden of Liver Disease

Comoderator Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College, London, England, remarked on the importance of new drugs, including survodutide, in reducing the burden of steatotic liver disease.

Approximately one third of the world’s population and between 7% and 9% of children have steatotic liver disease, she noted. The buildup of fat causes inflammation and scarring of the liver, which may then progress to liver cirrhosis and primary liver cancers.

Survodutide offers much hope “as a drug that will reduce both liver inflammation and scarring, while also providing the benefit of improved diabetic control,” Dr. Shawcross said.

Reflecting on the dual agonism, she said that both the glucagon and GLP-1 receptors are critical to controlling metabolic functions.

Survodutide is currently being investigated in five phase 3 studies for people living with overweight and obesity, both of which are associated with MASH. There is also a trial looking at people with overweight/obesity with confirmed or presumed diagnosis of MASH, according to a company press release.

Dr. Sanyal reported grants, consultancy fees, and speaker fees from a wide range of companies working in the field of liver medicine. Dr. Shawcross reported no conflicts in relation to this drug and advisory board membership/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.
 

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