Clinician Reviews

Stress-related disorders and anxiety are associated with a higher risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), a new case-control study suggests.

Investigators compared more than 35,000 OHCA case patients with a similar number of matched control persons and found an almost 1.5 times higher hazard of long-term stress conditions among OHCA case patients, compared with control persons, with a similar hazard for anxiety. Posttraumatic stress disorder was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of OHCA.

The findings applied equally to men and women and were independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“This study raises awareness of the higher risks of OHCA and early risk monitoring to prevent OHCA in patients with stress-related disorders and anxiety,” write Talip Eroglu, of the department of cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study was published online  in BMJ Open Heart.
 

Stress disorders and anxiety overrepresented

OHCA “predominantly arises from lethal cardiac arrhythmias ... that occur most frequently in the setting of coronary heart disease,” the authors write. However, increasing evidence suggests that rates of OHCA may also be increased in association with noncardiac diseases.

Individuals with stress-related disorders and anxiety are “overrepresented” among victims of cardiac arrest as well as those with multiple CVDs. But previous studies of OHCA have been limited by small numbers of cardiac arrests. In addition, those studies involved only data from selected populations or used in-hospital diagnosis to identify cardiac arrest, thereby potentially omitting OHCA patients who died prior to hospital admission.

The researchers therefore turned to data from Danish health registries that include a large, unselected cohort of patients with OHCA to investigate whether long-term stress conditions (that is, PTSD and adjustment disorder) or anxiety disorder were associated with OHCA.

They stratified the cohort according to sex, age, and CVD to identify which risk factor confers the highest risk of OHCA in patients with long-term stress conditions or anxiety, and they conducted sensitivity analyses of potential confounders, such as depression.

The design was a nested-case control model in which records at an individual patient level across registries were cross-linked to data from other national registries and were compared to matched control persons from the general population (35,195 OHCAs and 351,950 matched control persons; median IQR age, 72 [62-81] years; 66.82% men).

The prevalence of comorbidities and use of cardiovascular drugs were higher among OHCA case patients than among non-OHCA control persons.
 

Keep aware of stress and anxiety as risk factors

Among OHCA and non-OHCA participants, long-term stress conditions were diagnosed in 0.92% and 0.45%, respectively. Anxiety was diagnosed in 0.85% of OHCA case patients and in 0.37% of non-OHCA control persons.

These conditions were associated with a higher rate of OHCA after adjustment for common OHCA risk factors.

Detrimental to the heart, not just the psyche

Glenn Levine, MD, master clinician and professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, called it an “important study in that it is a large, nationwide cohort study and thus provides important information to complement much smaller, focused studies.”

Like those other studies, “it finds that negative psychological health, specifically, long-term stress (as well as anxiety), is associated with a significantly increased risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” continued Dr. Levine, who is the chief of the cardiology section at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and was not involved with the study.

Dr. Levine thinks the study “does a good job, as best one can for such a study, in trying to control for other factors, and zeroing in specifically on stress (and anxiety), trying to assess their independent contributions to the risk of developing cardiac arrest.”

The take-home message for clinicians and patients “is that negative psychological stress factors, such as stress and anxiety, are not only detrimental to one’s psychological health but likely increase one’s risk for adverse cardiac events, such as cardiac arrest,” he stated.

No specific funding for the study was disclosed. Mr. Eroglu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stress-related disorders and anxiety are associated with a higher risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), a new case-control study suggests.

Investigators compared more than 35,000 OHCA case patients with a similar number of matched control persons and found an almost 1.5 times higher hazard of long-term stress conditions among OHCA case patients, compared with control persons, with a similar hazard for anxiety. Posttraumatic stress disorder was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of OHCA.

The findings applied equally to men and women and were independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“This study raises awareness of the higher risks of OHCA and early risk monitoring to prevent OHCA in patients with stress-related disorders and anxiety,” write Talip Eroglu, of the department of cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study was published online  in BMJ Open Heart.
 

Stress disorders and anxiety overrepresented

OHCA “predominantly arises from lethal cardiac arrhythmias ... that occur most frequently in the setting of coronary heart disease,” the authors write. However, increasing evidence suggests that rates of OHCA may also be increased in association with noncardiac diseases.

Individuals with stress-related disorders and anxiety are “overrepresented” among victims of cardiac arrest as well as those with multiple CVDs. But previous studies of OHCA have been limited by small numbers of cardiac arrests. In addition, those studies involved only data from selected populations or used in-hospital diagnosis to identify cardiac arrest, thereby potentially omitting OHCA patients who died prior to hospital admission.

The researchers therefore turned to data from Danish health registries that include a large, unselected cohort of patients with OHCA to investigate whether long-term stress conditions (that is, PTSD and adjustment disorder) or anxiety disorder were associated with OHCA.

They stratified the cohort according to sex, age, and CVD to identify which risk factor confers the highest risk of OHCA in patients with long-term stress conditions or anxiety, and they conducted sensitivity analyses of potential confounders, such as depression.

The design was a nested-case control model in which records at an individual patient level across registries were cross-linked to data from other national registries and were compared to matched control persons from the general population (35,195 OHCAs and 351,950 matched control persons; median IQR age, 72 [62-81] years; 66.82% men).

The prevalence of comorbidities and use of cardiovascular drugs were higher among OHCA case patients than among non-OHCA control persons.
 

Keep aware of stress and anxiety as risk factors

Among OHCA and non-OHCA participants, long-term stress conditions were diagnosed in 0.92% and 0.45%, respectively. Anxiety was diagnosed in 0.85% of OHCA case patients and in 0.37% of non-OHCA control persons.

These conditions were associated with a higher rate of OHCA after adjustment for common OHCA risk factors.

Detrimental to the heart, not just the psyche

Glenn Levine, MD, master clinician and professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, called it an “important study in that it is a large, nationwide cohort study and thus provides important information to complement much smaller, focused studies.”

Like those other studies, “it finds that negative psychological health, specifically, long-term stress (as well as anxiety), is associated with a significantly increased risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” continued Dr. Levine, who is the chief of the cardiology section at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and was not involved with the study.

Dr. Levine thinks the study “does a good job, as best one can for such a study, in trying to control for other factors, and zeroing in specifically on stress (and anxiety), trying to assess their independent contributions to the risk of developing cardiac arrest.”

The take-home message for clinicians and patients “is that negative psychological stress factors, such as stress and anxiety, are not only detrimental to one’s psychological health but likely increase one’s risk for adverse cardiac events, such as cardiac arrest,” he stated.

No specific funding for the study was disclosed. Mr. Eroglu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stress-related disorders and anxiety are associated with a higher risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), a new case-control study suggests.

Investigators compared more than 35,000 OHCA case patients with a similar number of matched control persons and found an almost 1.5 times higher hazard of long-term stress conditions among OHCA case patients, compared with control persons, with a similar hazard for anxiety. Posttraumatic stress disorder was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of OHCA.

The findings applied equally to men and women and were independent of the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“This study raises awareness of the higher risks of OHCA and early risk monitoring to prevent OHCA in patients with stress-related disorders and anxiety,” write Talip Eroglu, of the department of cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues.

The study was published online  in BMJ Open Heart.
 

Stress disorders and anxiety overrepresented

OHCA “predominantly arises from lethal cardiac arrhythmias ... that occur most frequently in the setting of coronary heart disease,” the authors write. However, increasing evidence suggests that rates of OHCA may also be increased in association with noncardiac diseases.

Individuals with stress-related disorders and anxiety are “overrepresented” among victims of cardiac arrest as well as those with multiple CVDs. But previous studies of OHCA have been limited by small numbers of cardiac arrests. In addition, those studies involved only data from selected populations or used in-hospital diagnosis to identify cardiac arrest, thereby potentially omitting OHCA patients who died prior to hospital admission.

The researchers therefore turned to data from Danish health registries that include a large, unselected cohort of patients with OHCA to investigate whether long-term stress conditions (that is, PTSD and adjustment disorder) or anxiety disorder were associated with OHCA.

They stratified the cohort according to sex, age, and CVD to identify which risk factor confers the highest risk of OHCA in patients with long-term stress conditions or anxiety, and they conducted sensitivity analyses of potential confounders, such as depression.

The design was a nested-case control model in which records at an individual patient level across registries were cross-linked to data from other national registries and were compared to matched control persons from the general population (35,195 OHCAs and 351,950 matched control persons; median IQR age, 72 [62-81] years; 66.82% men).

The prevalence of comorbidities and use of cardiovascular drugs were higher among OHCA case patients than among non-OHCA control persons.
 

Keep aware of stress and anxiety as risk factors

Among OHCA and non-OHCA participants, long-term stress conditions were diagnosed in 0.92% and 0.45%, respectively. Anxiety was diagnosed in 0.85% of OHCA case patients and in 0.37% of non-OHCA control persons.

These conditions were associated with a higher rate of OHCA after adjustment for common OHCA risk factors.

Detrimental to the heart, not just the psyche

Glenn Levine, MD, master clinician and professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, called it an “important study in that it is a large, nationwide cohort study and thus provides important information to complement much smaller, focused studies.”

Like those other studies, “it finds that negative psychological health, specifically, long-term stress (as well as anxiety), is associated with a significantly increased risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” continued Dr. Levine, who is the chief of the cardiology section at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and was not involved with the study.

Dr. Levine thinks the study “does a good job, as best one can for such a study, in trying to control for other factors, and zeroing in specifically on stress (and anxiety), trying to assess their independent contributions to the risk of developing cardiac arrest.”

The take-home message for clinicians and patients “is that negative psychological stress factors, such as stress and anxiety, are not only detrimental to one’s psychological health but likely increase one’s risk for adverse cardiac events, such as cardiac arrest,” he stated.

No specific funding for the study was disclosed. Mr. Eroglu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

It sounds like a simple solution to a complicated problem: Find out what kind of obesity someone has based on a one-time genetic saliva test. Then patients and their doctor can get a better idea if antiobesity drugs or other treatments are more likely to work for them.

The goal of creating the obesity types and test is to increase chances of losing weight and improving health and well-being versus a one-strategy-fits-all approach. It’s what Mayo Clinic researchers had in mind when they created four phenotypes of obesity. 

Obesity experts not affiliated with the research have some concerns and say independent studies are needed to verify the potential of this strategy.

This research could help predict who will respond best to popular antiobesity medications, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, cofounder of Phenomix Sciences, the company behind the tests. These medications include glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists like liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy).

“We know that not everyone on a GLP-1 will respond. In reality, about a third of the patients don’t do well with GLP-1s,” said Dr. Acosta, an assistant professor of medicine and researcher in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. 

Furthest along in development is the “My Phenome Hungry Gut” test for predicting GLP-1 response. People in this Hungry Gut group tend to empty their stomach after a meal faster and are more likely to feel hungry again a short time later, as explained on the company’s website. 

A pilot study to test how well it works started in April at three primary care practices. Plans are to expand real-world testing for this and other obesity types later in 2023. 

The other obesity categories are:

• “Hungry brain,” where the brain does not recognize signals that the stomach is full
• “Emotional hunger,” where cravings to eat are driven by emotions, anxiety, and negative feelings
• “Slow burn,” where people have a slow metabolism and low energy level

People in these categories might be more likely to benefit from other obesity management strategies, like changes to their diet or placement of an intragastric balloon.
 

Some things to consider

While applauding their efforts to be more precise in treating people with obesity, not all experts are convinced this saliva test will be the answer. The company’s research might look promising, but verification of results is warranted. 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

“Can we get better outcomes with things like this? Well, that’s the hope,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of weight wellness at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We still don’t have randomized trials where we’re looking at obesity phenotyping yet,” said Dr. Almandoz, who is also a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, a professional group of clinicians, researchers, educators, and others focused on obesity science, treatment, and prevention.

There is always concern when a diagnostic test is being developed for commercial use, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor of medicine–endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What they’re talking about doing is super important. But this is a company. This is a company that is, I think, selling a product.”

In an online search, Dr. Bessesen did not find any external studies that showed how well the saliva testing worked. But referring to work by Dr. Acosta and Michael Camilleri, MD, the other cofounder of Phenomix, he said, “I found some papers that they did that I hadn’t read before that are good.”

“These guys are smart guys. And they’ve done a lot of work on [the movement of food through the gut] and how that correlates with obesity and response to some therapies,” said Dr. Bessesen, who is also a spokesperson for the Obesity Society. “So their scientific work does line up with this area.”

Validation of any research is important because the obesity industry has been known for a lot of lose-weight-quick strategies, some with little or no science behind them, he said. 

It is also essential, he said, because “anytime you do something commercial in the area of obesity, you have to acknowledge that people with obesity are a vulnerable population. These people face stigma and bias all the time.”
 

Removing the stigma

If knowing your obesity type ends up making a difference, it could change the conversation people have with their medical provider, Dr. Acosta said. It could also help remove some of the stigma around obesity.

“We’re going to change the conversation because now we can say: ‘Hey, you have obesity because you have ‘Hungry Gut’ phenotype. And because of that, you’re going to respond to this medication,” Dr. Acosta said. The phenotyping suggests a strong genetic tendency – a biologic basis for obesity. 

“So it’s not only a way of taking the blame out, but it’s also way of explaining that there’s a reason why you have obesity,” Dr. Acosta said. It tells people: “You’re not a failure.”
 

More cost-effective treatment?

Targeting obesity treatment could also save on overall health care costs, Dr. Almandoz said. He estimated a cost of $1,400 per month “for forever and ever semaglutide” or at least $1,400 a month for a 3-month trial to see if this medication works in a particular person with obesity.

“That’s a lot of money when you extrapolate that out over the number of people who probably meet the criteria for treatment,” he said. A total 42% of Americans meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition for obesity.

“You can imagine the potential cost if we were to provide antiobesity therapies to everybody and we were to use what is the most effective class of medication, which is more than a thousand dollars per month, indefinitely,” Dr. Almandoz said. “Not that we should not treat everybody. That’s not the message I’m saying. But if we’re looking at yield or value in terms of treating obesity in a setting with limited resources, it may be best to start with who is most likely to benefit.” 
 

How they created four obesity types

Starting in 2015, Dr. Acosta and colleagues started comparing tests in people with normal weight versus obesity. They used artificial intelligence and machine learning to classify obesity into 11 types at first. They realized this many obesity types were not practical for doctors and people with obesity, so they combined them into four phenotypes. 

“The AI machine learning was followed by, as I like to call, HI, or human intelligence,” he said. 

The saliva test checks for about 6,000 relevant genetic single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Six thousand genetic changes may sound like a large number to check; however, the average individual carries 5 million and 6 million SNPs in their DNA. 

The results are translated to a score that yields a low risk or high risk for Hungry Gut or other types of obesity. “You can have all six thousand genetic mutations, or you can have zero,” Dr. Acosta said.
 

Moving forward

After the soft launch of Hungry Gut testing in April, Phenomix plans to continue studying their saliva test on other obesity types.  

Dr. Acosta is not aware of any direct competitors to Phenomix, although that could change. “I think we’re the only diagnostic company in the space right now. But if it’s really a $14.8 billion market, we’re going to see a lot of diagnostic companies trying to do what we’re doing – if we’re successful,” he said. 

An October 2022 report from Polaris Market Research estimates that the global market for obesity treatment – medications, surgery, and all others – was about $14 billion in 2021. The same report predicts the market will grow to $32 billion by 2030. 

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

It sounds like a simple solution to a complicated problem: Find out what kind of obesity someone has based on a one-time genetic saliva test. Then patients and their doctor can get a better idea if antiobesity drugs or other treatments are more likely to work for them.

The goal of creating the obesity types and test is to increase chances of losing weight and improving health and well-being versus a one-strategy-fits-all approach. It’s what Mayo Clinic researchers had in mind when they created four phenotypes of obesity. 

Obesity experts not affiliated with the research have some concerns and say independent studies are needed to verify the potential of this strategy.

This research could help predict who will respond best to popular antiobesity medications, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, cofounder of Phenomix Sciences, the company behind the tests. These medications include glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists like liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy).

“We know that not everyone on a GLP-1 will respond. In reality, about a third of the patients don’t do well with GLP-1s,” said Dr. Acosta, an assistant professor of medicine and researcher in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. 

Furthest along in development is the “My Phenome Hungry Gut” test for predicting GLP-1 response. People in this Hungry Gut group tend to empty their stomach after a meal faster and are more likely to feel hungry again a short time later, as explained on the company’s website. 

A pilot study to test how well it works started in April at three primary care practices. Plans are to expand real-world testing for this and other obesity types later in 2023. 

The other obesity categories are:

• “Hungry brain,” where the brain does not recognize signals that the stomach is full
• “Emotional hunger,” where cravings to eat are driven by emotions, anxiety, and negative feelings
• “Slow burn,” where people have a slow metabolism and low energy level

People in these categories might be more likely to benefit from other obesity management strategies, like changes to their diet or placement of an intragastric balloon.
 

Some things to consider

While applauding their efforts to be more precise in treating people with obesity, not all experts are convinced this saliva test will be the answer. The company’s research might look promising, but verification of results is warranted. 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

“Can we get better outcomes with things like this? Well, that’s the hope,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of weight wellness at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We still don’t have randomized trials where we’re looking at obesity phenotyping yet,” said Dr. Almandoz, who is also a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, a professional group of clinicians, researchers, educators, and others focused on obesity science, treatment, and prevention.

There is always concern when a diagnostic test is being developed for commercial use, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor of medicine–endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What they’re talking about doing is super important. But this is a company. This is a company that is, I think, selling a product.”

In an online search, Dr. Bessesen did not find any external studies that showed how well the saliva testing worked. But referring to work by Dr. Acosta and Michael Camilleri, MD, the other cofounder of Phenomix, he said, “I found some papers that they did that I hadn’t read before that are good.”

“These guys are smart guys. And they’ve done a lot of work on [the movement of food through the gut] and how that correlates with obesity and response to some therapies,” said Dr. Bessesen, who is also a spokesperson for the Obesity Society. “So their scientific work does line up with this area.”

Validation of any research is important because the obesity industry has been known for a lot of lose-weight-quick strategies, some with little or no science behind them, he said. 

It is also essential, he said, because “anytime you do something commercial in the area of obesity, you have to acknowledge that people with obesity are a vulnerable population. These people face stigma and bias all the time.”
 

Removing the stigma

If knowing your obesity type ends up making a difference, it could change the conversation people have with their medical provider, Dr. Acosta said. It could also help remove some of the stigma around obesity.

“We’re going to change the conversation because now we can say: ‘Hey, you have obesity because you have ‘Hungry Gut’ phenotype. And because of that, you’re going to respond to this medication,” Dr. Acosta said. The phenotyping suggests a strong genetic tendency – a biologic basis for obesity. 

“So it’s not only a way of taking the blame out, but it’s also way of explaining that there’s a reason why you have obesity,” Dr. Acosta said. It tells people: “You’re not a failure.”
 

More cost-effective treatment?

Targeting obesity treatment could also save on overall health care costs, Dr. Almandoz said. He estimated a cost of $1,400 per month “for forever and ever semaglutide” or at least $1,400 a month for a 3-month trial to see if this medication works in a particular person with obesity.

“That’s a lot of money when you extrapolate that out over the number of people who probably meet the criteria for treatment,” he said. A total 42% of Americans meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition for obesity.

“You can imagine the potential cost if we were to provide antiobesity therapies to everybody and we were to use what is the most effective class of medication, which is more than a thousand dollars per month, indefinitely,” Dr. Almandoz said. “Not that we should not treat everybody. That’s not the message I’m saying. But if we’re looking at yield or value in terms of treating obesity in a setting with limited resources, it may be best to start with who is most likely to benefit.” 
 

How they created four obesity types

Starting in 2015, Dr. Acosta and colleagues started comparing tests in people with normal weight versus obesity. They used artificial intelligence and machine learning to classify obesity into 11 types at first. They realized this many obesity types were not practical for doctors and people with obesity, so they combined them into four phenotypes. 

“The AI machine learning was followed by, as I like to call, HI, or human intelligence,” he said. 

The saliva test checks for about 6,000 relevant genetic single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Six thousand genetic changes may sound like a large number to check; however, the average individual carries 5 million and 6 million SNPs in their DNA. 

The results are translated to a score that yields a low risk or high risk for Hungry Gut or other types of obesity. “You can have all six thousand genetic mutations, or you can have zero,” Dr. Acosta said.
 

Moving forward

After the soft launch of Hungry Gut testing in April, Phenomix plans to continue studying their saliva test on other obesity types.  

Dr. Acosta is not aware of any direct competitors to Phenomix, although that could change. “I think we’re the only diagnostic company in the space right now. But if it’s really a $14.8 billion market, we’re going to see a lot of diagnostic companies trying to do what we’re doing – if we’re successful,” he said. 

An October 2022 report from Polaris Market Research estimates that the global market for obesity treatment – medications, surgery, and all others – was about $14 billion in 2021. The same report predicts the market will grow to $32 billion by 2030. 

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

It sounds like a simple solution to a complicated problem: Find out what kind of obesity someone has based on a one-time genetic saliva test. Then patients and their doctor can get a better idea if antiobesity drugs or other treatments are more likely to work for them.

The goal of creating the obesity types and test is to increase chances of losing weight and improving health and well-being versus a one-strategy-fits-all approach. It’s what Mayo Clinic researchers had in mind when they created four phenotypes of obesity. 

Obesity experts not affiliated with the research have some concerns and say independent studies are needed to verify the potential of this strategy.

This research could help predict who will respond best to popular antiobesity medications, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, cofounder of Phenomix Sciences, the company behind the tests. These medications include glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists like liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy).

“We know that not everyone on a GLP-1 will respond. In reality, about a third of the patients don’t do well with GLP-1s,” said Dr. Acosta, an assistant professor of medicine and researcher in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. 

Furthest along in development is the “My Phenome Hungry Gut” test for predicting GLP-1 response. People in this Hungry Gut group tend to empty their stomach after a meal faster and are more likely to feel hungry again a short time later, as explained on the company’s website. 

A pilot study to test how well it works started in April at three primary care practices. Plans are to expand real-world testing for this and other obesity types later in 2023. 

The other obesity categories are:

• “Hungry brain,” where the brain does not recognize signals that the stomach is full
• “Emotional hunger,” where cravings to eat are driven by emotions, anxiety, and negative feelings
• “Slow burn,” where people have a slow metabolism and low energy level

People in these categories might be more likely to benefit from other obesity management strategies, like changes to their diet or placement of an intragastric balloon.
 

Some things to consider

While applauding their efforts to be more precise in treating people with obesity, not all experts are convinced this saliva test will be the answer. The company’s research might look promising, but verification of results is warranted. 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

“Can we get better outcomes with things like this? Well, that’s the hope,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of weight wellness at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We still don’t have randomized trials where we’re looking at obesity phenotyping yet,” said Dr. Almandoz, who is also a spokesperson for the Obesity Society, a professional group of clinicians, researchers, educators, and others focused on obesity science, treatment, and prevention.

There is always concern when a diagnostic test is being developed for commercial use, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor of medicine–endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What they’re talking about doing is super important. But this is a company. This is a company that is, I think, selling a product.”

In an online search, Dr. Bessesen did not find any external studies that showed how well the saliva testing worked. But referring to work by Dr. Acosta and Michael Camilleri, MD, the other cofounder of Phenomix, he said, “I found some papers that they did that I hadn’t read before that are good.”

“These guys are smart guys. And they’ve done a lot of work on [the movement of food through the gut] and how that correlates with obesity and response to some therapies,” said Dr. Bessesen, who is also a spokesperson for the Obesity Society. “So their scientific work does line up with this area.”

Validation of any research is important because the obesity industry has been known for a lot of lose-weight-quick strategies, some with little or no science behind them, he said. 

It is also essential, he said, because “anytime you do something commercial in the area of obesity, you have to acknowledge that people with obesity are a vulnerable population. These people face stigma and bias all the time.”
 

Removing the stigma

If knowing your obesity type ends up making a difference, it could change the conversation people have with their medical provider, Dr. Acosta said. It could also help remove some of the stigma around obesity.

“We’re going to change the conversation because now we can say: ‘Hey, you have obesity because you have ‘Hungry Gut’ phenotype. And because of that, you’re going to respond to this medication,” Dr. Acosta said. The phenotyping suggests a strong genetic tendency – a biologic basis for obesity. 

“So it’s not only a way of taking the blame out, but it’s also way of explaining that there’s a reason why you have obesity,” Dr. Acosta said. It tells people: “You’re not a failure.”
 

More cost-effective treatment?

Targeting obesity treatment could also save on overall health care costs, Dr. Almandoz said. He estimated a cost of $1,400 per month “for forever and ever semaglutide” or at least $1,400 a month for a 3-month trial to see if this medication works in a particular person with obesity.

“That’s a lot of money when you extrapolate that out over the number of people who probably meet the criteria for treatment,” he said. A total 42% of Americans meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition for obesity.

“You can imagine the potential cost if we were to provide antiobesity therapies to everybody and we were to use what is the most effective class of medication, which is more than a thousand dollars per month, indefinitely,” Dr. Almandoz said. “Not that we should not treat everybody. That’s not the message I’m saying. But if we’re looking at yield or value in terms of treating obesity in a setting with limited resources, it may be best to start with who is most likely to benefit.” 
 

How they created four obesity types

Starting in 2015, Dr. Acosta and colleagues started comparing tests in people with normal weight versus obesity. They used artificial intelligence and machine learning to classify obesity into 11 types at first. They realized this many obesity types were not practical for doctors and people with obesity, so they combined them into four phenotypes. 

“The AI machine learning was followed by, as I like to call, HI, or human intelligence,” he said. 

The saliva test checks for about 6,000 relevant genetic single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Six thousand genetic changes may sound like a large number to check; however, the average individual carries 5 million and 6 million SNPs in their DNA. 

The results are translated to a score that yields a low risk or high risk for Hungry Gut or other types of obesity. “You can have all six thousand genetic mutations, or you can have zero,” Dr. Acosta said.
 

Moving forward

After the soft launch of Hungry Gut testing in April, Phenomix plans to continue studying their saliva test on other obesity types.  

Dr. Acosta is not aware of any direct competitors to Phenomix, although that could change. “I think we’re the only diagnostic company in the space right now. But if it’s really a $14.8 billion market, we’re going to see a lot of diagnostic companies trying to do what we’re doing – if we’re successful,” he said. 

An October 2022 report from Polaris Market Research estimates that the global market for obesity treatment – medications, surgery, and all others – was about $14 billion in 2021. The same report predicts the market will grow to $32 billion by 2030. 

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

People who followed a vegan or vegetarian diet had lower blood levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (apoB) than people who followed an omnivore diet, in a new meta-analysis of 30 trials.

The findings suggest that “plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” write Caroline Amelie Koch, a medical student at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues. Their findings were published online in the European Heart Journal (2023 May 24. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad211).

“Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with a 14% reduction in all artery-clogging lipoproteins as indicated by apoB,” senior author Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, DMSc, PhD, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and professor, University of Copenhagen, said in a press release from her university.

“This corresponds to a third of the effect of taking cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins,” she added, “and would result in a 7% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease in someone who maintained a plant-based diet for 5 years.”

gerenme/ThinkStock

More support for vegan, vegetarian diets

These new findings “add to the body of evidence supporting favorable effects of healthy vegan and vegetarian dietary patterns on circulating levels of LDL-C and atherogenic lipoproteins, which would be expected to reduce ASCVD risk,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, and Carol Kirkpatrick, PhD, MPH, write in an accompanying editorial.

“While it is not necessary to entirely omit foods such as meat, poultry, and fish/seafood to follow a recommended dietary pattern, reducing consumption of such foods is a reasonable option for those who prefer to do so,” note Dr. Maki, of Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, and Kirkpatrick, of Idaho State University, Pocatello.
 

Plant-based diet needs to be ‘well-planned’

Several experts who were not involved in this meta-analysis shed light on the study and its implications in comments to the U.K. Science Media Center.

“Although a vegetarian and vegan diet can be very healthy and beneficial with respect to cardiovascular risk, it is important that it is well planned so that nutrients it can be low in are included, including iron, iodine, vitamin B12, and vitamin D,” said Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University, Birmingham, England.

Some people “may find it easier to follow a Mediterranean-style diet that features plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains, fish, eggs and low-fat dairy, with only small amounts of meat,” Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, London, suggested.

“There is considerable evidence that this type of diet can help lower your risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases by improving cholesterol and blood pressure levels, reducing inflammation, and controlling blood glucose levels,” she added.

And Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair in nutrition & preventative medicine, Queen’s University Belfast (Ireland), noted that “not all plant-based diets are equal. Healthy plant-based diets, characterized by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains improve health, but other plant diets (for example, those including refined carbohydrates, processed foods high in fat/salt, etc.) do not.”  

This new study shows that plant-based diets have the potential to improve health by improving blood lipids, “but this is one of many potential mechanisms, including impact on blood pressure, weight maintenance, and blood sugars,” she added.

“This work represents a well-conducted analysis of 30 clinical trials involving over two thousand participants and highlights the value of a vegetarian diet in reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke through reduction in blood cholesterol levels,” said Robert Storey, BM, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield, U.K.

However, it also demonstrates that the impact of diet on an individual’s cholesterol level is relatively limited, he added.

“This is because people inherit the tendency for their livers to produce too much cholesterol, meaning that high cholesterol is more strongly influenced by our genes than by our diet,” he explained.

This is “why statins are needed to block cholesterol production in people who are at higher risk of or have already suffered from a heart attack, stroke, or other illness related to cholesterol build-up in blood vessels.”
 

Beneficial effect on ApoB, LDL-C, and total cholesterol

ApoB is the main apolipoprotein in LDL-C (“bad” cholesterol), the researchers note. Previous studies have shown that LDL-C and apoB-containing particles are associated with increased risk of ASCVD.

They aimed to estimate the effect of vegetarian or vegan diets on blood levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB in people randomized to a vegetarian or vegan diet versus an omnivorous diet (that is, including meat and dairy).

They identified 30 studies published between 1982 and 2022 and conducted in the United States (18 studies), Sweden (2), Finland (2), South Korea (2), Australia (1), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1), Italy (1), Iran (1), and New Zealand (1).

The diet interventions lasted from 10 days to 5 years with a mean of 29 weeks (15 studies ≤ 3 months; 12 studies 3-12 months; and three studies > 1 year). Nine studies used a crossover design, and the rest used a parallel design whereby participants followed only one diet.

The studies had 11 to 291 participants (mean, 79 participants) with a mean BMI of 21.5-35.1 kg/m² and a mean age of 20-67 years. Thirteen studies included participants treated with lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

The dietary intervention was vegetarian in 15 trials (three lacto-vegetarian and 12 lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and vegan in the other 15 trials.

On average, compared with people eating an omnivore diet, people eating a plant-based diet had a 7% reduction in total cholesterol from baseline (–0.34 mmol/L), a 10% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (–0.30 mmol/L), and a 14% reduction in apoB from baseline (–12.9 mg/dL) (all P < .01).

The effects were similar across age, continent, study duration, health status, intervention diet, intervention program, and study design subgroups.

There was no significant difference in triglyceride levels in patients in the omnivore versus plant-based diet groups.
 

Such diets could considerably reduce greenhouse gases

Senior author Dr. Frikke-Schmidt noted: “Recent systematic reviews have shown that if the populations of high-income countries shift to plant-based diets, this can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by between 35% to 49%.”

“Plant-based diets are key instruments for changing food production to more environmentally sustainable forms, while at the same time reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease” in an aging population, she said.

“We should be eating a varied, plant-rich diet, not too much, and quenching our thirst with water,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Ms. Parker, Dr. Cassidy, and Dr. Storey have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mellor has disclosed that he is a vegetarian.

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

People who followed a vegan or vegetarian diet had lower blood levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (apoB) than people who followed an omnivore diet, in a new meta-analysis of 30 trials.

The findings suggest that “plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” write Caroline Amelie Koch, a medical student at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues. Their findings were published online in the European Heart Journal (2023 May 24. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad211).

“Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with a 14% reduction in all artery-clogging lipoproteins as indicated by apoB,” senior author Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, DMSc, PhD, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and professor, University of Copenhagen, said in a press release from her university.

“This corresponds to a third of the effect of taking cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins,” she added, “and would result in a 7% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease in someone who maintained a plant-based diet for 5 years.”

gerenme/ThinkStock

More support for vegan, vegetarian diets

These new findings “add to the body of evidence supporting favorable effects of healthy vegan and vegetarian dietary patterns on circulating levels of LDL-C and atherogenic lipoproteins, which would be expected to reduce ASCVD risk,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, and Carol Kirkpatrick, PhD, MPH, write in an accompanying editorial.

“While it is not necessary to entirely omit foods such as meat, poultry, and fish/seafood to follow a recommended dietary pattern, reducing consumption of such foods is a reasonable option for those who prefer to do so,” note Dr. Maki, of Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, and Kirkpatrick, of Idaho State University, Pocatello.
 

Plant-based diet needs to be ‘well-planned’

Several experts who were not involved in this meta-analysis shed light on the study and its implications in comments to the U.K. Science Media Center.

“Although a vegetarian and vegan diet can be very healthy and beneficial with respect to cardiovascular risk, it is important that it is well planned so that nutrients it can be low in are included, including iron, iodine, vitamin B12, and vitamin D,” said Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University, Birmingham, England.

Some people “may find it easier to follow a Mediterranean-style diet that features plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains, fish, eggs and low-fat dairy, with only small amounts of meat,” Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, London, suggested.

“There is considerable evidence that this type of diet can help lower your risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases by improving cholesterol and blood pressure levels, reducing inflammation, and controlling blood glucose levels,” she added.

And Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair in nutrition & preventative medicine, Queen’s University Belfast (Ireland), noted that “not all plant-based diets are equal. Healthy plant-based diets, characterized by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains improve health, but other plant diets (for example, those including refined carbohydrates, processed foods high in fat/salt, etc.) do not.”  

This new study shows that plant-based diets have the potential to improve health by improving blood lipids, “but this is one of many potential mechanisms, including impact on blood pressure, weight maintenance, and blood sugars,” she added.

“This work represents a well-conducted analysis of 30 clinical trials involving over two thousand participants and highlights the value of a vegetarian diet in reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke through reduction in blood cholesterol levels,” said Robert Storey, BM, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield, U.K.

However, it also demonstrates that the impact of diet on an individual’s cholesterol level is relatively limited, he added.

“This is because people inherit the tendency for their livers to produce too much cholesterol, meaning that high cholesterol is more strongly influenced by our genes than by our diet,” he explained.

This is “why statins are needed to block cholesterol production in people who are at higher risk of or have already suffered from a heart attack, stroke, or other illness related to cholesterol build-up in blood vessels.”
 

Beneficial effect on ApoB, LDL-C, and total cholesterol

ApoB is the main apolipoprotein in LDL-C (“bad” cholesterol), the researchers note. Previous studies have shown that LDL-C and apoB-containing particles are associated with increased risk of ASCVD.

They aimed to estimate the effect of vegetarian or vegan diets on blood levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB in people randomized to a vegetarian or vegan diet versus an omnivorous diet (that is, including meat and dairy).

They identified 30 studies published between 1982 and 2022 and conducted in the United States (18 studies), Sweden (2), Finland (2), South Korea (2), Australia (1), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1), Italy (1), Iran (1), and New Zealand (1).

The diet interventions lasted from 10 days to 5 years with a mean of 29 weeks (15 studies ≤ 3 months; 12 studies 3-12 months; and three studies > 1 year). Nine studies used a crossover design, and the rest used a parallel design whereby participants followed only one diet.

The studies had 11 to 291 participants (mean, 79 participants) with a mean BMI of 21.5-35.1 kg/m² and a mean age of 20-67 years. Thirteen studies included participants treated with lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

The dietary intervention was vegetarian in 15 trials (three lacto-vegetarian and 12 lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and vegan in the other 15 trials.

On average, compared with people eating an omnivore diet, people eating a plant-based diet had a 7% reduction in total cholesterol from baseline (–0.34 mmol/L), a 10% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (–0.30 mmol/L), and a 14% reduction in apoB from baseline (–12.9 mg/dL) (all P < .01).

The effects were similar across age, continent, study duration, health status, intervention diet, intervention program, and study design subgroups.

There was no significant difference in triglyceride levels in patients in the omnivore versus plant-based diet groups.
 

Such diets could considerably reduce greenhouse gases

Senior author Dr. Frikke-Schmidt noted: “Recent systematic reviews have shown that if the populations of high-income countries shift to plant-based diets, this can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by between 35% to 49%.”

“Plant-based diets are key instruments for changing food production to more environmentally sustainable forms, while at the same time reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease” in an aging population, she said.

“We should be eating a varied, plant-rich diet, not too much, and quenching our thirst with water,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Ms. Parker, Dr. Cassidy, and Dr. Storey have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mellor has disclosed that he is a vegetarian.

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

People who followed a vegan or vegetarian diet had lower blood levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (apoB) than people who followed an omnivore diet, in a new meta-analysis of 30 trials.

The findings suggest that “plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease,” write Caroline Amelie Koch, a medical student at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues. Their findings were published online in the European Heart Journal (2023 May 24. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad211).

“Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with a 14% reduction in all artery-clogging lipoproteins as indicated by apoB,” senior author Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, DMSc, PhD, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and professor, University of Copenhagen, said in a press release from her university.

“This corresponds to a third of the effect of taking cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins,” she added, “and would result in a 7% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease in someone who maintained a plant-based diet for 5 years.”

gerenme/ThinkStock

More support for vegan, vegetarian diets

These new findings “add to the body of evidence supporting favorable effects of healthy vegan and vegetarian dietary patterns on circulating levels of LDL-C and atherogenic lipoproteins, which would be expected to reduce ASCVD risk,” Kevin C. Maki, PhD, and Carol Kirkpatrick, PhD, MPH, write in an accompanying editorial.

“While it is not necessary to entirely omit foods such as meat, poultry, and fish/seafood to follow a recommended dietary pattern, reducing consumption of such foods is a reasonable option for those who prefer to do so,” note Dr. Maki, of Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, and Kirkpatrick, of Idaho State University, Pocatello.
 

Plant-based diet needs to be ‘well-planned’

Several experts who were not involved in this meta-analysis shed light on the study and its implications in comments to the U.K. Science Media Center.

“Although a vegetarian and vegan diet can be very healthy and beneficial with respect to cardiovascular risk, it is important that it is well planned so that nutrients it can be low in are included, including iron, iodine, vitamin B12, and vitamin D,” said Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston Medical School, Aston University, Birmingham, England.

Some people “may find it easier to follow a Mediterranean-style diet that features plenty of fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains, fish, eggs and low-fat dairy, with only small amounts of meat,” Tracy Parker, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, London, suggested.

“There is considerable evidence that this type of diet can help lower your risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases by improving cholesterol and blood pressure levels, reducing inflammation, and controlling blood glucose levels,” she added.

And Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair in nutrition & preventative medicine, Queen’s University Belfast (Ireland), noted that “not all plant-based diets are equal. Healthy plant-based diets, characterized by fruits, vegetables, and whole grains improve health, but other plant diets (for example, those including refined carbohydrates, processed foods high in fat/salt, etc.) do not.”  

This new study shows that plant-based diets have the potential to improve health by improving blood lipids, “but this is one of many potential mechanisms, including impact on blood pressure, weight maintenance, and blood sugars,” she added.

“This work represents a well-conducted analysis of 30 clinical trials involving over two thousand participants and highlights the value of a vegetarian diet in reducing the risk of heart attack or stroke through reduction in blood cholesterol levels,” said Robert Storey, BM, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield, U.K.

However, it also demonstrates that the impact of diet on an individual’s cholesterol level is relatively limited, he added.

“This is because people inherit the tendency for their livers to produce too much cholesterol, meaning that high cholesterol is more strongly influenced by our genes than by our diet,” he explained.

This is “why statins are needed to block cholesterol production in people who are at higher risk of or have already suffered from a heart attack, stroke, or other illness related to cholesterol build-up in blood vessels.”
 

Beneficial effect on ApoB, LDL-C, and total cholesterol

ApoB is the main apolipoprotein in LDL-C (“bad” cholesterol), the researchers note. Previous studies have shown that LDL-C and apoB-containing particles are associated with increased risk of ASCVD.

They aimed to estimate the effect of vegetarian or vegan diets on blood levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglycerides, and apoB in people randomized to a vegetarian or vegan diet versus an omnivorous diet (that is, including meat and dairy).

They identified 30 studies published between 1982 and 2022 and conducted in the United States (18 studies), Sweden (2), Finland (2), South Korea (2), Australia (1), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1), Italy (1), Iran (1), and New Zealand (1).

The diet interventions lasted from 10 days to 5 years with a mean of 29 weeks (15 studies ≤ 3 months; 12 studies 3-12 months; and three studies > 1 year). Nine studies used a crossover design, and the rest used a parallel design whereby participants followed only one diet.

The studies had 11 to 291 participants (mean, 79 participants) with a mean BMI of 21.5-35.1 kg/m² and a mean age of 20-67 years. Thirteen studies included participants treated with lipid-lowering therapy at baseline.

The dietary intervention was vegetarian in 15 trials (three lacto-vegetarian and 12 lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and vegan in the other 15 trials.

On average, compared with people eating an omnivore diet, people eating a plant-based diet had a 7% reduction in total cholesterol from baseline (–0.34 mmol/L), a 10% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (–0.30 mmol/L), and a 14% reduction in apoB from baseline (–12.9 mg/dL) (all P < .01).

The effects were similar across age, continent, study duration, health status, intervention diet, intervention program, and study design subgroups.

There was no significant difference in triglyceride levels in patients in the omnivore versus plant-based diet groups.
 

Such diets could considerably reduce greenhouse gases

Senior author Dr. Frikke-Schmidt noted: “Recent systematic reviews have shown that if the populations of high-income countries shift to plant-based diets, this can reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases by between 35% to 49%.”

“Plant-based diets are key instruments for changing food production to more environmentally sustainable forms, while at the same time reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease” in an aging population, she said.

“We should be eating a varied, plant-rich diet, not too much, and quenching our thirst with water,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation. The authors, editorialists, Ms. Parker, Dr. Cassidy, and Dr. Storey have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mellor has disclosed that he is a vegetarian.

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

WASHINGTON – Abrocitinib demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in an integrated safety analysis of 635 adolescents and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.

University of California, San Diego

The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.

“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.

With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”

(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)

Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Abrocitinib in adolescents

For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.

Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.

In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.

“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.

“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.

In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.

Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults

The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)

In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.

The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.

Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.

The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.

The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
 

‘The more data ... the better’

Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.

Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.

The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.

“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”

With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.

The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”

The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
 

WASHINGTON – Abrocitinib demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in an integrated safety analysis of 635 adolescents and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.

University of California, San Diego

The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.

“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.

With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”

(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)

Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Abrocitinib in adolescents

For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.

Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.

In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.

“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.

“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.

In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.

Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults

The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)

In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.

The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.

Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.

The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.

The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
 

‘The more data ... the better’

Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.

Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.

The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.

“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”

With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.

The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”

The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
 

WASHINGTON – Abrocitinib demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in an integrated safety analysis of 635 adolescents and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.

University of California, San Diego

The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.

“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.

With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”

(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)

Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Abrocitinib in adolescents

For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.

Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.

In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.

“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.

“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.

In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.

Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults

The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)

In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.

The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.

Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.

The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.

The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
 

‘The more data ... the better’

Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.

Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.

The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.

“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”

With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.

The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”

The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
 

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two commonly used screening tools to detect risk of fracture often fail at that purpose for younger postmenopausal women of every race and ethnicity, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

One of the screenings, the U.S. Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), proved relatively ineffective at identifying women who developed osteoporosis. The other screening, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST), excelled at identifying osteoporosis for women in every racial and ethnic group, but also failed at identifying who was most likely to experience a fracture. Osteoporosis experts say that primary care physicians should test for the condition in anyone with any risk factor for it, even if a screening tool suggests doing so is unnecessary.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends routine testing of bone mineral density in women age 65 years and older to detect risk of developing osteoporosis, which in turn leads to an increased risk for fractures of the hip, spine, shoulder, or forearm. For women aged 50-64, whether bone mineral density accurately reflects who will develop osteoporosis is less clear. In this age range, the USPSTF recommends using either FRAX or OST rather than routine bone mineral density tests.

“I have the utmost respect for the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which lists both of these as valid screening tools for younger postmenopausal women. What I hope this study does is to inform the next iteration of the screening guidelines,” by maintaining the recommendation to use the OST while not keeping FRAX, said Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the research.

The U.S. version of FRAX requires identifying someone’s race, height, and weight, then answering whether they have different risk factors for a fracture such as a previous fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, or smoking. The result was thought to indicate a cumulative risk for major fracture over the next 10 years. Patients at significant risk should then undergo a bone density test.

The tool can also incorporate information about bone mineral density, if available, but the FRAX analyses in Dr. Crandall’s study did not include those data because the study aimed to test the measure’s predictive ability in the absence of a bone scan.

The OST includes only two variables – weight and age – to calculate risk for osteoporosis, and generally takes seconds to complete. It does not include race. As with FRAX, anyone deemed at significant risk for developing osteoporosis should undergo a bone density test.

“OST is really simple; that makes it very appealing,” Dr. Crandall said. “OST could probably be automatically calculated in the electronic medical record.” 

Using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, Dr. Crandall and colleagues tracked more than 67,000 women aged 50-64 years for 10 years following enrollment in the study to see who experienced a fracture or developed osteoporosis over that decade. The investigators found that neither FRAX nor OST was particularly good at predicting who went on to experience a fracture. 

The accuracy of FRAX at fracture prediction peaked at 65% for Asian women (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.71), and was lowest for Black women (AUC 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). OST also was most accurate for Asian women, but only up to 62% (AUC 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69), and was again lowest for Black women (AUC 0.53; 95% CI, 0.50 - 0.57)

“It is just very hard to predict fractures in this age group,” Dr. Crandall said, noting that more evidence exists about risk for fracture in people older than 65.

The story diverges with predicting risk of osteoporosis in the neck. The OST did this roughly 80% of the time, for all racial groups. That figure proved better than FRAX, without including race.
 

Treatment gap

“This evidence supports using OST instead of FRAX” for selecting younger postmenopausal women who should undergo a bone mineral density exam, said E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center in Albuquerque. 

UNM Health Sciences Center

Dr. Lewiecki, who was not involved in the new study, noted that the U.S. version of FRAX specifies race because of some clinical evidence that different races have different rates of fracture. But he and Dr. Crandall said the validity of race-based algorithms to guide clinical care is a controversial and evolving topic in medicine. Dr. Lewiecki said the Canadian version of FRAX, which is similarly applied to a diverse population as in the United States, omits race and works as well as the U.S. version. Future iterations of the instrument in the United States may not include race, Dr. Lewiecki said.

“The study is perfectly valid as far as it goes. But the big gorilla in the room is that most patients who need a bone density test are not getting it,” Dr. Lewiecki added. Sometimes a patient might break a bone in their wrist, for example, and tell their primary care provider that anyone would have broken that bone because the fall was so hard. Even if that’s true, Dr. Lewiecki said, any woman older than 45 who has broken a bone should undergo a bone density test to determine if they have osteoporosis, even if it seems like there are other possible reasons for why the break occurred.

“Most of the clinical practice guidelines that are used by physicians recommend getting a bone density test in postmenopausal women under the age of 65 who have a risk factor for fracture,” Dr. Lewiecki said, with a primary risk factor being a prior fracture. Dr. Lewiecki said he would rather that anyone who could benefit from a bone density test receive it, rather than someone foregoing a scan based on a screening tool that may be flawed.

“Most patients – men and women – who have osteoporosis are currently not being identified. Even when they are being identified, they are commonly not being treated. And when they are started on treatment, many patients discontinue treatment before they’ve taken it long enough to benefit,” Dr. Lewiecki said.

Dr. Crandall and Dr. Lewiecki report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.

These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.

The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living. 

The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.

Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water. 

First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.

As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors, the burgeoning hydrogel field is poised to transform the way we take medication and treat worn-out joints and pave the way for a seemingly sci-fi future in which organs, including brains, can interact directly with machines.

“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
 

From contact lenses to brain implants

Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water. 

The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H₂O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.

“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”

Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other. 

Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.

Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.

“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”

Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.

All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world. 

“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
 

Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics

Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.

“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.

But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.

His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.

This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.

“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”

Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.

Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.

In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.

“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
 

Building joints and regrowing bones

Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.

Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options. 

But that may be about to change.

Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.

By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.

They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.

“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said. 

At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.

In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate. 

In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.

“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
 

A sci-fi future

Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.

Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.

The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.

But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.

She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.

Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.

In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.

“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
 

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

Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.

These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.

The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living. 

The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.

Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water. 

First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.

As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors, the burgeoning hydrogel field is poised to transform the way we take medication and treat worn-out joints and pave the way for a seemingly sci-fi future in which organs, including brains, can interact directly with machines.

“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
 

From contact lenses to brain implants

Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water. 

The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H₂O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.

“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”

Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other. 

Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.

Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.

“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”

Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.

All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world. 

“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
 

Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics

Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.

“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.

But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.

His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.

This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.

“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”

Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.

Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.

In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.

“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
 

Building joints and regrowing bones

Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.

Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options. 

But that may be about to change.

Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.

By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.

They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.

“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said. 

At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.

In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate. 

In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.

“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
 

A sci-fi future

Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.

Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.

The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.

But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.

She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.

Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.

In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.

“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
 

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

Imagine a day when a simple injection prompts a broken bone to heal. When tiny, ingestible devices linger in the body, unnoticed, tracking our health or delivering life-saving medications. When brain and heart implants mesh with flesh so seamlessly that the body thinks they’ve been there all along.

These are the dreams of materials scientists who have toiled for decades to mimic the complex architecture of the human body in hopes of replacing broken parts or treating disease.

The problem, say bioengineers, is that most replacement and corrective parts – from prosthetics to pacemakers – are made of hard, dry, lifeless materials, like metal or plastic, while biological tissue is soft, wet, and living. 

The body knows the difference and tends to reject imitations.

Enter hydrogels, three-dimensional networks of molecules swollen with – by definition – water. 

First described in 1960 by creators of soft contact lenses, these weird, shape-shifting substances are able to morph from liquid to solid to a squishy in-between. (Early, simple uses include hair gel or Jell-O.). Slow to gain attention, growing to just 1,000 studies published by 1982, they’ve become the subject of intense study recently, with 100,000 papers published by 2020, and 3,800 already this year alone.

As chemists, biologists, and engineers begin to work more with one another and with medical doctors, the burgeoning hydrogel field is poised to transform the way we take medication and treat worn-out joints and pave the way for a seemingly sci-fi future in which organs, including brains, can interact directly with machines.

“We are, essentially, hydrogels,” said Benjamin Wiley, PhD, a chemistry professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “As people develop new hydrogels that more closely match the tissues in our body, we’ll be able to treat a whole host of ailments we couldn’t treat before.”
 

From contact lenses to brain implants

Put simply, a hydrogel is like a mesh bag of water. 

The mesh is made of polymers, or spaghetti-like strands of molecules, stitched together in a repeating pattern and swollen with H₂O, much like the way 3D matrixes in our body surround, support, and give structure to our cells and tissues.

“Imagine a soccer net, with all of these long fibers woven together to create the net,” said Eric Appel, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

While the broader category of “gels” could be filled with anything, including chemical solvents, water is the key ingredient that sets hydrogels apart, making them ideal for, as some scientists put it, “merging humans and machines.”

Human bones are about 25% water, while muscles hover around 70% and the brain is 85%. The precious liquid plays a host of critical roles, from shuttling nutrients in and waste out to helping cells talk to each other. 

Lab-made hydrogels can be loaded with cargo (like a ball in the net), including cells or drugs that help mimic some of those functions.

Hydrogels are soft and pliable like flesh. So, if used in implants, they may be less likely to damage surrounding tissue.

“Think about a metal spoon in your bowl of pudding. As you’re shaking the bowl, the spoon doesn’t stay in place, and you get scarring around the spoon,” said Christina Tringides, PhD, a materials scientist who studies neural engineering. That, she says, is exactly what happens to brain implants when patients breathe or move. “It’s a mechanical mismatch. But with hydrogels, you could get perfect mechanical matching.”

Hydrogels also tend to be nontoxic, so the immune system may be less likely to attack them as foreign bodies.

All this has made hydrogels the new darling of the bioengineering world. 

“There has been an absolute explosion of interest in these materials,” Dr. Appel said.
 

Smarter drug delivery and ingestible electronics

Early versions of hydrogels were thick and gooey, making it hard to get them inside the body.

“Think of a block of Jell-O. You couldn’t inject something like that,” Dr. Appel said.

But Dr. Appel, whose lab develops new drug delivery systems, has been tinkering with gel formulas for years in hopes that these high-tech globs could someday ferry timed-release drugs to just the right spot in the body.

His new hydrogels start as fully formed gels (which help preserve the drug contents) inside a syringe. But once the plunger is pushed, they magically shape-shift to a liquid thin enough to flow easily through a standard needle. Upon exit, they immediately reform into gels, protecting the inherent cargo from degrading.

This could be a game changer at a time when many cutting-edge drugs – think Humira for arthritis or Ozempic for type 2 diabetes – are made of quickly degrading proteins too large and complex to simply jam into a pill. Instead, they must be injected, often frequently.

“Because the gel takes months to dissolve, it slowly delivers the drug over time,” Dr. Appel said. “You could conceivably go from a shot once a week to once every 4 months.”

Such slow-release hydrogels could make vaccines last longer, in turn teaching the body to better resist emerging virus variants, and deliver tumor-busting therapies more precisely, said Dr. Appel, who has formed a startup and hopes to fast-track the first hydrogel drug delivery system to clinical trials within a few years.

Meanwhile, another team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has taken a different approach, developing a standard-sized ingestible hydrogel pill that swells up like a puffer fish in the stomach, lasting a month and slowly releasing drugs all the while. To remove the pill, a patient simply drinks a salt-based solution that shrivels the ping-pong ball–sized device so it can be passed out of the body.

In a paper in Nature Communications, the scientists showed the puffer fish pill could also be loaded with tiny cameras or monitors to track conditions like ulcers or cancer.

“The dream is to have a Jell-O-like smart pill that, once swallowed, stays in the stomach and monitors the patient’s health,” said Xuanhe Zhao, PhD, a researcher on the project and associate professor of mechanical engineering at MIT.
 

Building joints and regrowing bones

Since the 1970s, researchers have mulled using hydrogels to replace human cartilage, a remarkably strong and flexible tissue made of about 90% water but able to withstand the weight of a car on an area about the size of a coin.

Until recently, those efforts have largely failed. Meaning when knee cartilage wears down, things like cartilage transplants, drilling holes to stimulate new growth, or total joint replacements – all of which require lengthy rehab – are the only options. 

But that may be about to change.

Dr. Wiley and his colleagues at Duke recently reported that they’d developed the first gel-based cartilage substitute even stronger and more durable than the real thing.

By attaching their hydrogel to a titanium backing to help stick it in place, they hope to repair damaged cartilage “much like a dentist fills a cavity” long before surgery is necessary.

They too have partnered with industry to bring their hydrogel to market – starting with knees.

“Ultimately, the goal is to do any joint – hips, ankles, fingers, and toes,” Dr. Wiley said. 

At the University of Toronto, chemist Karina Carneiro, PhD, and dentist Christopher McCulloch, DDS, are also thinking big.

In a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they describe a hydrogel, designed by Dr. Carneiro and made of DNA, that can be injected, migrate to a defect in bone – an irreparable break, hole from surgery, or jawbone withered by age – and fill in the gap like putty. But not only does it patch the hole, it prompts the bone to regenerate. 

In rats with holes in their skulls due to surgery, they found that the treatment did not work as well as the existing gold standard for repairing holes in bone – grafting bone from elsewhere in the body. But it did work.

“These are very early days for DNA hydrogels,” cautioned Dr. McCulloch, a study coauthor and professor in the Faculty of Dentistry, noting that it will likely be a decade or more before such technology could be available to patients. “But there is the potential that DNA hydrogel could someday grow bone without having to have highly invasive surgical procedures. That’s a significant advancement.”
 

A sci-fi future

Perhaps the wildest, and weirdest, potential applications of hydrogels come in the realm of human-machine interaction.

Numerous companies are already dabbling in neural prosthetic or brain computer interfaces that might someday, for instance, let someone who is paralyzed and can’t speak write on a laptop using their thoughts.

The spoon-in-the-Jell-O problem has been a major stumbling block.

But Dr. Tringides, who recently earned her PhD in biophysics from Harvard, is working on it.

She and her team have developed a seaweed-based hydrogel loaded with tiny flecks of nanomaterials that can not only meld nicely into squishy brain tissue but also conduct electricity.

Within a decade, she says, this could replace the clunky platinum metal discs used for electrocorticography – recording electrical activity in the brain to identify where seizures start or doing precise brain surgery.

In 30 to 50 years? Let your imagination run wild.

“I’m a skeptic. I like to take research step by step,” she said. “But things are definitely progressing in an interesting direction.”
 

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

BALTIMORE – The off-label prescribing of compounded, bioidentical hormone therapy – in pills, creams, or pellets – for symptoms of perimenopause or menopause can put physicians at legal risk because the products lack scientific backing, according to an expert at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Clinicians write an estimated 26 to 33 million prescriptions for compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (cBHT) every year, and almost 41% of menopausal women who need treatment try cBHT during their lives. But these drugs lack the approval for this indication from the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is a public perception that this is natural, safer, and anti-aging,” said Robert Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and assistant dean for research at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Amarillo.

Following the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative report showing a link between hormone therapy (HT) and an increase in the incidence of breast cancer, medical schools have slowed or paused instructing trainees on the traditional treatment, Dr. Kauffman said. The association was later determined to be spurious: HT is not associated with a risk for all-cause mortality or deaths from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, HT still is largely ignored by younger physicians, Dr. Kauffman said, because of unsubstantiated “dangers” such as heart attack, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.

The lack of education on HT for medical school students and residents has “opened the door to unsubstantiated marketing claims and practices” for cBHT, Dr. Kauffman said. “Hence, the use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy has increased” as clinicians look for alternatives.

Groups including ACOG, the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend against the use of Non–FDA-approved therapies such as cBHT, except for narrow indications. Dr. Kauffman said that drug manufacturers have not conducted randomized controlled trials or observational studies on cBHT in treating menopause.

He cited studies showing quality problems with the compounding process of these drugs, and wide variations in the amount of actual ingredients from product labels. One 2021 study published in Menopause comparing patients taking cBHT or FDA-approved HT found that side effects were significantly higher in the cBHT group (57.6% vs. 14.8%; P < .0001).

But manufacturers of cBHT claim that their products prevent cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease and decrease the risk for breast cancer and stroke – assertions that are at best unproven, according to Dr. Kauffman.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2020 said that clinicians have a duty to inform patients of the insufficient evidence to support clinical use of cBHT and should prescribe the products only to patients with documented allergies to an active ingredient in an FDA-approved agent or who require an alternative dosage.

Patients may also have to pay much more out of pocket for cBHT products because they often are not covered by insurance. Generic HT products, meanwhile, are relatively inexpensive and typically are covered, he noted.

“We have to be careful to avoid financial harm to patients by prescribing things, which are much more expensive than those which are usually available,” Dr. Kauffman said.

Prescribing any non–FDA-approved product, especially when biosimilars are available, places physicians at legal risk, Dr. Kauffman said. Physicians who recommend cBHT should inform patients that the products are not FDA approved and carefully document this discussion in the patient’s electronic health record. State boards of medicine can sanction physicians for “coercion” for prescribing cBHT products without mentioning alternatives, he added.

JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and executive director emeritus of NAMS, who attended the session, praised Dr. Kauffman for providing a balanced and evidence-based overview of the subject.

University of Virginia Health System

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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