Clinician Reviews

Vasomotor symptoms the sudden rises in body temperature that affect about 75% of menopausal women, have drawn interest after the approval of a new oral drug and research linking hot flashes to Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and stroke. 

Now entering the discussion are researchers from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Embr Labs (a Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff) who say they’ve developed a machine-learning algorithm that can predict a hot flash. 

Their idea is to combine this algorithm with a product called Embr Wave, a watch-like wearable that can emit coolness (or warmth) to the sensitive skin on the inside of the wrist, providing whole-body relief. The device, which sells for $299, is already touted as a way to manage menopausal hot flashes. 

But once the algorithm is added, the device will be able to “continuously monitor physiological signals – skin temperature, body temperature, sweating, activity level, or heart rate – and identify early indicators that a hot flash is building,” said Michael Busa, PhD, director of the Center for Human Health and Performance at UMass Amherst, who led the team that developed the algorithm.

That data would be sent to a computing platform in the cloud, where the algorithm can flag signs of an impending hot flash, Dr. Busa said. The device would automatically prompt cooling in less than a second, which could effectively stop the hot flash in its tracks or at least help to take the edge off. 
 

Exploring cooling therapy for hot flashes

“There is always tremendous interest in anything that is nonhormonal and effective in treatment of hot flashes,” said Karen Adams, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the menopause and healthy aging program at Stanford (Calif.) University. (Dr. Adams was not involved in developing this technology.) 

Hormone therapy is the primary treatment, easing hot flashes in 3-4 weeks, Dr. Adams said. “But some women do not want to take estrogen, or should not due to medical contraindications.” 

Hormone therapy is generally not recommended for people with a history of breast cancer, blood clots, or diseases of their heart or blood vessels. Recent research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society found that hormone therapy may not work as well in women with obesity. 

For nonhormonal treatments, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the oral med fezolinetant (Veozah) in May. Antidepressant medications can also be used as a first-line treatment in those who can’t take estrogen. Another oral drug, elinzanetant, is in late-stage clinical trials. 

But there has been little clinical investigation – only two small studies, Dr. Adams said – examining cooling therapy as a treatment for hot flashes. That’s something the makers of this device hope to change. 

“Despite the fact that seeking cooling relief is a woman’s immediate natural response to the onset of a hot flash, there is limited work done to understand the benefits of this natural therapy,” said Matthew Smith, PhD, chief technology officer at Embr Labs. “This is in part because the technology didn’t exist to deliver cooling in an immediate, reproducible manner.”

The algorithm’s performance has been benchmarked using data from women having hot flashes, Dr. Smith said. Results have been submitted for publication.

The Embr Wave has been shown to help menopausal women with hot flashes sleep better. It has also been tested as a therapy for hot flashes related to cancer treatment. 

But to truly evaluate the device as a treatment for hot flashes, it should be tested in randomized trials including a “sham treatment arm” – where some people get the real treatment while others get the sham treatment, Dr. Adams said. 

“Device studies tend to have high placebo response rates that can only be truly evaluated when there is a sham treatment in the study,” she said. “If such a device were shown to be safe and effective, we would absolutely recommend it. But we’re a long way from that.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Vasomotor symptoms the sudden rises in body temperature that affect about 75% of menopausal women, have drawn interest after the approval of a new oral drug and research linking hot flashes to Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and stroke. 

Now entering the discussion are researchers from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Embr Labs (a Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff) who say they’ve developed a machine-learning algorithm that can predict a hot flash. 

Their idea is to combine this algorithm with a product called Embr Wave, a watch-like wearable that can emit coolness (or warmth) to the sensitive skin on the inside of the wrist, providing whole-body relief. The device, which sells for $299, is already touted as a way to manage menopausal hot flashes. 

But once the algorithm is added, the device will be able to “continuously monitor physiological signals – skin temperature, body temperature, sweating, activity level, or heart rate – and identify early indicators that a hot flash is building,” said Michael Busa, PhD, director of the Center for Human Health and Performance at UMass Amherst, who led the team that developed the algorithm.

That data would be sent to a computing platform in the cloud, where the algorithm can flag signs of an impending hot flash, Dr. Busa said. The device would automatically prompt cooling in less than a second, which could effectively stop the hot flash in its tracks or at least help to take the edge off. 
 

Exploring cooling therapy for hot flashes

“There is always tremendous interest in anything that is nonhormonal and effective in treatment of hot flashes,” said Karen Adams, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the menopause and healthy aging program at Stanford (Calif.) University. (Dr. Adams was not involved in developing this technology.) 

Hormone therapy is the primary treatment, easing hot flashes in 3-4 weeks, Dr. Adams said. “But some women do not want to take estrogen, or should not due to medical contraindications.” 

Hormone therapy is generally not recommended for people with a history of breast cancer, blood clots, or diseases of their heart or blood vessels. Recent research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society found that hormone therapy may not work as well in women with obesity. 

For nonhormonal treatments, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the oral med fezolinetant (Veozah) in May. Antidepressant medications can also be used as a first-line treatment in those who can’t take estrogen. Another oral drug, elinzanetant, is in late-stage clinical trials. 

But there has been little clinical investigation – only two small studies, Dr. Adams said – examining cooling therapy as a treatment for hot flashes. That’s something the makers of this device hope to change. 

“Despite the fact that seeking cooling relief is a woman’s immediate natural response to the onset of a hot flash, there is limited work done to understand the benefits of this natural therapy,” said Matthew Smith, PhD, chief technology officer at Embr Labs. “This is in part because the technology didn’t exist to deliver cooling in an immediate, reproducible manner.”

The algorithm’s performance has been benchmarked using data from women having hot flashes, Dr. Smith said. Results have been submitted for publication.

The Embr Wave has been shown to help menopausal women with hot flashes sleep better. It has also been tested as a therapy for hot flashes related to cancer treatment. 

But to truly evaluate the device as a treatment for hot flashes, it should be tested in randomized trials including a “sham treatment arm” – where some people get the real treatment while others get the sham treatment, Dr. Adams said. 

“Device studies tend to have high placebo response rates that can only be truly evaluated when there is a sham treatment in the study,” she said. “If such a device were shown to be safe and effective, we would absolutely recommend it. But we’re a long way from that.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Vasomotor symptoms the sudden rises in body temperature that affect about 75% of menopausal women, have drawn interest after the approval of a new oral drug and research linking hot flashes to Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and stroke. 

Now entering the discussion are researchers from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Embr Labs (a Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff) who say they’ve developed a machine-learning algorithm that can predict a hot flash. 

Their idea is to combine this algorithm with a product called Embr Wave, a watch-like wearable that can emit coolness (or warmth) to the sensitive skin on the inside of the wrist, providing whole-body relief. The device, which sells for $299, is already touted as a way to manage menopausal hot flashes. 

But once the algorithm is added, the device will be able to “continuously monitor physiological signals – skin temperature, body temperature, sweating, activity level, or heart rate – and identify early indicators that a hot flash is building,” said Michael Busa, PhD, director of the Center for Human Health and Performance at UMass Amherst, who led the team that developed the algorithm.

That data would be sent to a computing platform in the cloud, where the algorithm can flag signs of an impending hot flash, Dr. Busa said. The device would automatically prompt cooling in less than a second, which could effectively stop the hot flash in its tracks or at least help to take the edge off. 
 

Exploring cooling therapy for hot flashes

“There is always tremendous interest in anything that is nonhormonal and effective in treatment of hot flashes,” said Karen Adams, MD, an ob.gyn. and director of the menopause and healthy aging program at Stanford (Calif.) University. (Dr. Adams was not involved in developing this technology.) 

Hormone therapy is the primary treatment, easing hot flashes in 3-4 weeks, Dr. Adams said. “But some women do not want to take estrogen, or should not due to medical contraindications.” 

Hormone therapy is generally not recommended for people with a history of breast cancer, blood clots, or diseases of their heart or blood vessels. Recent research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society found that hormone therapy may not work as well in women with obesity. 

For nonhormonal treatments, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the oral med fezolinetant (Veozah) in May. Antidepressant medications can also be used as a first-line treatment in those who can’t take estrogen. Another oral drug, elinzanetant, is in late-stage clinical trials. 

But there has been little clinical investigation – only two small studies, Dr. Adams said – examining cooling therapy as a treatment for hot flashes. That’s something the makers of this device hope to change. 

“Despite the fact that seeking cooling relief is a woman’s immediate natural response to the onset of a hot flash, there is limited work done to understand the benefits of this natural therapy,” said Matthew Smith, PhD, chief technology officer at Embr Labs. “This is in part because the technology didn’t exist to deliver cooling in an immediate, reproducible manner.”

The algorithm’s performance has been benchmarked using data from women having hot flashes, Dr. Smith said. Results have been submitted for publication.

The Embr Wave has been shown to help menopausal women with hot flashes sleep better. It has also been tested as a therapy for hot flashes related to cancer treatment. 

But to truly evaluate the device as a treatment for hot flashes, it should be tested in randomized trials including a “sham treatment arm” – where some people get the real treatment while others get the sham treatment, Dr. Adams said. 

“Device studies tend to have high placebo response rates that can only be truly evaluated when there is a sham treatment in the study,” she said. “If such a device were shown to be safe and effective, we would absolutely recommend it. But we’re a long way from that.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With nutrient-stimulated hormone therapies for obesity in phase 3 trials, and activin-receptor inhibitors the next upcoming drug class, highly effective treatments for obesity are on the horizon.

“We are at a watershed [moment] brought on by the recent introduction of highly effective antiobesity medications,” Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, said in a lecture at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

Dr. Jastreboff, of Yale University and the Yale Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Conn., provided an overview of the many nutrient-stimulated hormone-based antiobesity therapies in late phases of development – including dual and triple therapies with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, glucagon, and amylin.

“I’ve shown you all of these agents that clearly produce substantial weight reduction,” she said. “The fact that these nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based therapies are not all the same is a good thing,” she stressed, because “it’s not likely that everyone will respond to each of these, and they are likely to respond differently.”

She then briefly touched on activin receptor inhibitors –”the next [medication] class that I think will be up and coming,” she speculated.

“Beyond (just) weight reduction,” Dr. Jastreboff concluded, clinicians “need to focus on optimizing health as we are treating obesity.” Clinicians need to consider the patient’s severity of obesity, overall health, and metabolic profile, and match the obesity treatment to the patient. They also need to consider the rate of weight reduction, potential bone loss, vitamin deficiencies, muscle loss and function, and side effects, and be mindful of affordability, bias, and stigma.
 

Looking forward to multiple options

W. Timothy Garvey, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization that clinicians treating patients with obesity are looking forward to the decision from the Food and Drug Administration about tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected by year’s end. Tirzepatide “is really the best medicine that we have for diabetes in terms of A1c control without much hypoglycemia,” he said, “and also the best medicine for treating obesity in patients with diabetes.”

A recent study found that people with type 2 diabetes who adhered to their tirzepatide regimen achieved a 15% weight loss from their baseline after 40-42 weeks.

Dr. Garvey added that he is looking forward to drugs in development such as survodutide (a GLP-1/glucagon agonist) and orforglipron (a small oral daily nonpeptide GLP-1 RA). “Orforglipron wouldn’t have to be refrigerated,” he noted, and it “could be cheaper to manufacture, might be preferred over subcutaneous medication by some people, and it showed pretty good efficacy in early studies.”

Retatrutide, a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon) and CagriSema (cagrilintide plus semaglutide) showed “pretty impressive weight loss in early studies,” Dr. Garvey said. “We’re optimistic.”

Also invited to comment, Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, Wharton Medical Clinic and York University, Toronto, said that the recent developments in antiobesity medications are “so exciting that it’s difficult to make direct comments,” since “maybe there will be something bigger, or maybe something will go wrong with these molecules and we’ll have to back-step.”

Further studies are needed, he added, to determine outcomes in patients who reduce their intake to half or three-quarters of a dose, or who transition to intermittent therapy.
 

Nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based antiobesity medications

Here’s a status overview of the nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications already approved and on the horizon:

Semaglutide. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide (Ozempic), was approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2017. In June 2021, the FDA approved the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) for obesity.

Topline results from the Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) cardiovascular outcome trial showed that in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, Dr. Jastreboff noted, adding that full results will be presented at the American Heart Association meeting on Nov. 11.

Tirzepatide. In May 2022, the FDA approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a GIP/GLP-1RA, for type 2 diabetes, and a decision about the use of tirzepatide for obesity is expected by year’s end.

The full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-3 trial were presented at ObesityWeek (just after this session), as reported by this news organization.

And the full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-4 trial of tirzepatide for obesity were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting, Dr. Jastreboff noted. At 88 weeks, in the continued tirzepatide group, average weight reduction was 26%, absolute weight reduction was 62 pounds (28.1 kg), and > 50% of individuals achieved ≥ 25% weight loss.

The phase 3 SURMOUNT MMO trial of morbidity and mortality with tirzepatide in obesity is estimated to be completed in 2027.

Cagrilintide. In a phase 2 trial of the amylin analog cagrilintide in patients with obesity, more than half of participants lost at least 10% of their weight at 26 weeks.

CagriSema. In a phase 1b trial of the amylin analog/GLP-1 RA combination of cagrilintide/semaglutide (CagriSema), average weight reduction at 20 weeks was 17.1%. The estimated primary completion dates of phase 3 trials of CagriSema, REDEFINE 1 (obesity), REDEFINE 2  (obesity and type 2 diabetes), and REDEFINE 3 (obesity and established cardiovascular disease), are 2025, 2024, and 2027, respectively. 

Survodutide. Findings from a phase 2 trial of the glucagon/GLP-1 RA survodutide were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting in June. With 46 weeks of treatment, the average weight reduction was 18.7%, and up to 40% of participants lost at least 20% of their body weight.

Survodutide is being studied in the phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE trials.

Retatrutide. Phase 2 findings of 12-mg weekly of the GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide were also presented at ADA. On average, at 48 weeks, the placebo group lost 2.1% of their weight and the retatrutide group lost 24.2% of their weight, with an average absolute reduction of 58 pounds (26.3 kg). At the highest dose (12 mg), 9 out of 10 individuals lost ≥ 10%, nearly two-thirds lost ≥ 20%, and a quarter lost ≥ 30% of their weight, at 48 weeks.

With the two highest doses of retatrutide, 100% of participants lost ≥ 5% of weight, Dr. Jastreboff reported, adding, “I’m not sure how many other times I will ever be able to say ‘100%’ in any scientific presentation.”

TRIUMPH phase 3 studies of retatrutide are ongoing.

“All the agents I’ve spoken about thus far are once-weekly injectable,” Dr. Jastreboff said, turning her attention to oral drugs.

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes. The phase 2 OASIS trial results presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity who received 50 mg daily of the oral medication had an average weight reduction of 17.4% at 68 weeks, which is comparable to the 16.9% weight reduction with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 once weekly. More than a third of patients receiving the treatment lost ≥ 20% weight at 68 weeks.

The phase 3 OASIS study of oral semaglutide in obesity is ongoing.

Orforglipron. Phase 2 data of the small molecule oral GLP-1 RA orforglipron presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.

The phase 3 ATTAIN study of orforglipron in obesity is ongoing.

AMG133. In a phase 2 trial, participants with obesity who received the monthly GIP receptor antagonist/ GLP-1 receptor agonist AMG133 (Amgen) had an average weight reduction of 14.5% at just 12 weeks.
 

Activin receptor inhibitors

Bimagrumab. This drug is a monoclonal antibody activin receptor inhibitor that binds to activin type II receptors. In a phase 2 study of 58 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity who received monthly medication or placebo, participants receiving bimagrumab lost 20.5% of fat mass and gained 3.6% of lean mass at 48 weeks, and the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and muscle spasm.

Bimagrumab and semaglutide for obesity are being studied in BELIEVE, an ongoing phase 2b study. Topline results are anticipated by the end of 2024.

Taldefgrobep. The fusion protein taldefgrobep binds active myostatin. A phase 2 study of taldefgrobep for obesity is planned to start in 2024.

Dr. Jastreboff is on the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research support form Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Rhythm, and NIH/NIDDK.

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

With nutrient-stimulated hormone therapies for obesity in phase 3 trials, and activin-receptor inhibitors the next upcoming drug class, highly effective treatments for obesity are on the horizon.

“We are at a watershed [moment] brought on by the recent introduction of highly effective antiobesity medications,” Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, said in a lecture at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

Dr. Jastreboff, of Yale University and the Yale Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Conn., provided an overview of the many nutrient-stimulated hormone-based antiobesity therapies in late phases of development – including dual and triple therapies with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, glucagon, and amylin.

“I’ve shown you all of these agents that clearly produce substantial weight reduction,” she said. “The fact that these nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based therapies are not all the same is a good thing,” she stressed, because “it’s not likely that everyone will respond to each of these, and they are likely to respond differently.”

She then briefly touched on activin receptor inhibitors –”the next [medication] class that I think will be up and coming,” she speculated.

“Beyond (just) weight reduction,” Dr. Jastreboff concluded, clinicians “need to focus on optimizing health as we are treating obesity.” Clinicians need to consider the patient’s severity of obesity, overall health, and metabolic profile, and match the obesity treatment to the patient. They also need to consider the rate of weight reduction, potential bone loss, vitamin deficiencies, muscle loss and function, and side effects, and be mindful of affordability, bias, and stigma.
 

Looking forward to multiple options

W. Timothy Garvey, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization that clinicians treating patients with obesity are looking forward to the decision from the Food and Drug Administration about tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected by year’s end. Tirzepatide “is really the best medicine that we have for diabetes in terms of A1c control without much hypoglycemia,” he said, “and also the best medicine for treating obesity in patients with diabetes.”

A recent study found that people with type 2 diabetes who adhered to their tirzepatide regimen achieved a 15% weight loss from their baseline after 40-42 weeks.

Dr. Garvey added that he is looking forward to drugs in development such as survodutide (a GLP-1/glucagon agonist) and orforglipron (a small oral daily nonpeptide GLP-1 RA). “Orforglipron wouldn’t have to be refrigerated,” he noted, and it “could be cheaper to manufacture, might be preferred over subcutaneous medication by some people, and it showed pretty good efficacy in early studies.”

Retatrutide, a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon) and CagriSema (cagrilintide plus semaglutide) showed “pretty impressive weight loss in early studies,” Dr. Garvey said. “We’re optimistic.”

Also invited to comment, Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, Wharton Medical Clinic and York University, Toronto, said that the recent developments in antiobesity medications are “so exciting that it’s difficult to make direct comments,” since “maybe there will be something bigger, or maybe something will go wrong with these molecules and we’ll have to back-step.”

Further studies are needed, he added, to determine outcomes in patients who reduce their intake to half or three-quarters of a dose, or who transition to intermittent therapy.
 

Nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based antiobesity medications

Here’s a status overview of the nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications already approved and on the horizon:

Semaglutide. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide (Ozempic), was approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2017. In June 2021, the FDA approved the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) for obesity.

Topline results from the Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) cardiovascular outcome trial showed that in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, Dr. Jastreboff noted, adding that full results will be presented at the American Heart Association meeting on Nov. 11.

Tirzepatide. In May 2022, the FDA approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a GIP/GLP-1RA, for type 2 diabetes, and a decision about the use of tirzepatide for obesity is expected by year’s end.

The full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-3 trial were presented at ObesityWeek (just after this session), as reported by this news organization.

And the full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-4 trial of tirzepatide for obesity were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting, Dr. Jastreboff noted. At 88 weeks, in the continued tirzepatide group, average weight reduction was 26%, absolute weight reduction was 62 pounds (28.1 kg), and > 50% of individuals achieved ≥ 25% weight loss.

The phase 3 SURMOUNT MMO trial of morbidity and mortality with tirzepatide in obesity is estimated to be completed in 2027.

Cagrilintide. In a phase 2 trial of the amylin analog cagrilintide in patients with obesity, more than half of participants lost at least 10% of their weight at 26 weeks.

CagriSema. In a phase 1b trial of the amylin analog/GLP-1 RA combination of cagrilintide/semaglutide (CagriSema), average weight reduction at 20 weeks was 17.1%. The estimated primary completion dates of phase 3 trials of CagriSema, REDEFINE 1 (obesity), REDEFINE 2  (obesity and type 2 diabetes), and REDEFINE 3 (obesity and established cardiovascular disease), are 2025, 2024, and 2027, respectively. 

Survodutide. Findings from a phase 2 trial of the glucagon/GLP-1 RA survodutide were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting in June. With 46 weeks of treatment, the average weight reduction was 18.7%, and up to 40% of participants lost at least 20% of their body weight.

Survodutide is being studied in the phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE trials.

Retatrutide. Phase 2 findings of 12-mg weekly of the GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide were also presented at ADA. On average, at 48 weeks, the placebo group lost 2.1% of their weight and the retatrutide group lost 24.2% of their weight, with an average absolute reduction of 58 pounds (26.3 kg). At the highest dose (12 mg), 9 out of 10 individuals lost ≥ 10%, nearly two-thirds lost ≥ 20%, and a quarter lost ≥ 30% of their weight, at 48 weeks.

With the two highest doses of retatrutide, 100% of participants lost ≥ 5% of weight, Dr. Jastreboff reported, adding, “I’m not sure how many other times I will ever be able to say ‘100%’ in any scientific presentation.”

TRIUMPH phase 3 studies of retatrutide are ongoing.

“All the agents I’ve spoken about thus far are once-weekly injectable,” Dr. Jastreboff said, turning her attention to oral drugs.

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes. The phase 2 OASIS trial results presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity who received 50 mg daily of the oral medication had an average weight reduction of 17.4% at 68 weeks, which is comparable to the 16.9% weight reduction with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 once weekly. More than a third of patients receiving the treatment lost ≥ 20% weight at 68 weeks.

The phase 3 OASIS study of oral semaglutide in obesity is ongoing.

Orforglipron. Phase 2 data of the small molecule oral GLP-1 RA orforglipron presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.

The phase 3 ATTAIN study of orforglipron in obesity is ongoing.

AMG133. In a phase 2 trial, participants with obesity who received the monthly GIP receptor antagonist/ GLP-1 receptor agonist AMG133 (Amgen) had an average weight reduction of 14.5% at just 12 weeks.
 

Activin receptor inhibitors

Bimagrumab. This drug is a monoclonal antibody activin receptor inhibitor that binds to activin type II receptors. In a phase 2 study of 58 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity who received monthly medication or placebo, participants receiving bimagrumab lost 20.5% of fat mass and gained 3.6% of lean mass at 48 weeks, and the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and muscle spasm.

Bimagrumab and semaglutide for obesity are being studied in BELIEVE, an ongoing phase 2b study. Topline results are anticipated by the end of 2024.

Taldefgrobep. The fusion protein taldefgrobep binds active myostatin. A phase 2 study of taldefgrobep for obesity is planned to start in 2024.

Dr. Jastreboff is on the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research support form Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Rhythm, and NIH/NIDDK.

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

With nutrient-stimulated hormone therapies for obesity in phase 3 trials, and activin-receptor inhibitors the next upcoming drug class, highly effective treatments for obesity are on the horizon.

“We are at a watershed [moment] brought on by the recent introduction of highly effective antiobesity medications,” Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, said in a lecture at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

Dr. Jastreboff, of Yale University and the Yale Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Conn., provided an overview of the many nutrient-stimulated hormone-based antiobesity therapies in late phases of development – including dual and triple therapies with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, glucagon, and amylin.

“I’ve shown you all of these agents that clearly produce substantial weight reduction,” she said. “The fact that these nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based therapies are not all the same is a good thing,” she stressed, because “it’s not likely that everyone will respond to each of these, and they are likely to respond differently.”

She then briefly touched on activin receptor inhibitors –”the next [medication] class that I think will be up and coming,” she speculated.

“Beyond (just) weight reduction,” Dr. Jastreboff concluded, clinicians “need to focus on optimizing health as we are treating obesity.” Clinicians need to consider the patient’s severity of obesity, overall health, and metabolic profile, and match the obesity treatment to the patient. They also need to consider the rate of weight reduction, potential bone loss, vitamin deficiencies, muscle loss and function, and side effects, and be mindful of affordability, bias, and stigma.
 

Looking forward to multiple options

W. Timothy Garvey, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization that clinicians treating patients with obesity are looking forward to the decision from the Food and Drug Administration about tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected by year’s end. Tirzepatide “is really the best medicine that we have for diabetes in terms of A1c control without much hypoglycemia,” he said, “and also the best medicine for treating obesity in patients with diabetes.”

A recent study found that people with type 2 diabetes who adhered to their tirzepatide regimen achieved a 15% weight loss from their baseline after 40-42 weeks.

Dr. Garvey added that he is looking forward to drugs in development such as survodutide (a GLP-1/glucagon agonist) and orforglipron (a small oral daily nonpeptide GLP-1 RA). “Orforglipron wouldn’t have to be refrigerated,” he noted, and it “could be cheaper to manufacture, might be preferred over subcutaneous medication by some people, and it showed pretty good efficacy in early studies.”

Retatrutide, a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon) and CagriSema (cagrilintide plus semaglutide) showed “pretty impressive weight loss in early studies,” Dr. Garvey said. “We’re optimistic.”

Also invited to comment, Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, Wharton Medical Clinic and York University, Toronto, said that the recent developments in antiobesity medications are “so exciting that it’s difficult to make direct comments,” since “maybe there will be something bigger, or maybe something will go wrong with these molecules and we’ll have to back-step.”

Further studies are needed, he added, to determine outcomes in patients who reduce their intake to half or three-quarters of a dose, or who transition to intermittent therapy.
 

Nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based antiobesity medications

Here’s a status overview of the nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications already approved and on the horizon:

Semaglutide. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide (Ozempic), was approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2017. In June 2021, the FDA approved the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) for obesity.

Topline results from the Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) cardiovascular outcome trial showed that in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, Dr. Jastreboff noted, adding that full results will be presented at the American Heart Association meeting on Nov. 11.

Tirzepatide. In May 2022, the FDA approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a GIP/GLP-1RA, for type 2 diabetes, and a decision about the use of tirzepatide for obesity is expected by year’s end.

The full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-3 trial were presented at ObesityWeek (just after this session), as reported by this news organization.

And the full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-4 trial of tirzepatide for obesity were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting, Dr. Jastreboff noted. At 88 weeks, in the continued tirzepatide group, average weight reduction was 26%, absolute weight reduction was 62 pounds (28.1 kg), and > 50% of individuals achieved ≥ 25% weight loss.

The phase 3 SURMOUNT MMO trial of morbidity and mortality with tirzepatide in obesity is estimated to be completed in 2027.

Cagrilintide. In a phase 2 trial of the amylin analog cagrilintide in patients with obesity, more than half of participants lost at least 10% of their weight at 26 weeks.

CagriSema. In a phase 1b trial of the amylin analog/GLP-1 RA combination of cagrilintide/semaglutide (CagriSema), average weight reduction at 20 weeks was 17.1%. The estimated primary completion dates of phase 3 trials of CagriSema, REDEFINE 1 (obesity), REDEFINE 2  (obesity and type 2 diabetes), and REDEFINE 3 (obesity and established cardiovascular disease), are 2025, 2024, and 2027, respectively. 

Survodutide. Findings from a phase 2 trial of the glucagon/GLP-1 RA survodutide were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting in June. With 46 weeks of treatment, the average weight reduction was 18.7%, and up to 40% of participants lost at least 20% of their body weight.

Survodutide is being studied in the phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE trials.

Retatrutide. Phase 2 findings of 12-mg weekly of the GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide were also presented at ADA. On average, at 48 weeks, the placebo group lost 2.1% of their weight and the retatrutide group lost 24.2% of their weight, with an average absolute reduction of 58 pounds (26.3 kg). At the highest dose (12 mg), 9 out of 10 individuals lost ≥ 10%, nearly two-thirds lost ≥ 20%, and a quarter lost ≥ 30% of their weight, at 48 weeks.

With the two highest doses of retatrutide, 100% of participants lost ≥ 5% of weight, Dr. Jastreboff reported, adding, “I’m not sure how many other times I will ever be able to say ‘100%’ in any scientific presentation.”

TRIUMPH phase 3 studies of retatrutide are ongoing.

“All the agents I’ve spoken about thus far are once-weekly injectable,” Dr. Jastreboff said, turning her attention to oral drugs.

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes. The phase 2 OASIS trial results presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity who received 50 mg daily of the oral medication had an average weight reduction of 17.4% at 68 weeks, which is comparable to the 16.9% weight reduction with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 once weekly. More than a third of patients receiving the treatment lost ≥ 20% weight at 68 weeks.

The phase 3 OASIS study of oral semaglutide in obesity is ongoing.

Orforglipron. Phase 2 data of the small molecule oral GLP-1 RA orforglipron presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.

The phase 3 ATTAIN study of orforglipron in obesity is ongoing.

AMG133. In a phase 2 trial, participants with obesity who received the monthly GIP receptor antagonist/ GLP-1 receptor agonist AMG133 (Amgen) had an average weight reduction of 14.5% at just 12 weeks.
 

Activin receptor inhibitors

Bimagrumab. This drug is a monoclonal antibody activin receptor inhibitor that binds to activin type II receptors. In a phase 2 study of 58 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity who received monthly medication or placebo, participants receiving bimagrumab lost 20.5% of fat mass and gained 3.6% of lean mass at 48 weeks, and the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and muscle spasm.

Bimagrumab and semaglutide for obesity are being studied in BELIEVE, an ongoing phase 2b study. Topline results are anticipated by the end of 2024.

Taldefgrobep. The fusion protein taldefgrobep binds active myostatin. A phase 2 study of taldefgrobep for obesity is planned to start in 2024.

Dr. Jastreboff is on the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research support form Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Rhythm, and NIH/NIDDK.

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

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.

But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the development of a biomaterial known as microporous annealed particle (MAP) hydrogel, which in preclinical studies has been shown to trigger the immune system leading to improved tissue repair and healthier, stronger skin.

“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”

Dr. Scumpia

Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”

Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”

Approaches to skin regeneration

Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”

Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”

Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”

The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.

During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”

In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.

Clinical trials planned

The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.

Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.

But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the development of a biomaterial known as microporous annealed particle (MAP) hydrogel, which in preclinical studies has been shown to trigger the immune system leading to improved tissue repair and healthier, stronger skin.

“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”

Dr. Scumpia

Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”

Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”

Approaches to skin regeneration

Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”

Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”

Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”

The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.

During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”

In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.

Clinical trials planned

The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.

Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.

But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the development of a biomaterial known as microporous annealed particle (MAP) hydrogel, which in preclinical studies has been shown to trigger the immune system leading to improved tissue repair and healthier, stronger skin.

“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”

Dr. Scumpia

Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”

Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”

Approaches to skin regeneration

Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”

Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”

Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”

The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.

During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”

In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.

Clinical trials planned

The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.

Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and MRI-detected synovitis who took methotrexate (MTX) 20 mg weekly over a 6-month period had a significant and potentially clinically meaningful reduction in pain and stiffness over those who received placebo in the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to show positive results with the drug.

Patients who were randomly assigned to MTX took 10 mg orally for the first 4 weeks then increased to 20 mg for the rest of the trial, with differences in the primary outcome of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) first becoming significant over placebo at 3 months.

Senior author of the METHODS study (Methotrexate to Treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis), Flavia Cicuttini, PhD, MSc, head of the musculoskeletal unit at Monash University and head of rheumatology at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, noted that the effect of MTX was higher than effect sizes that have been reported for NSAIDs on pain in hip or knee OA.

Astrid Gast/Thinkstock

The study was published online October 12 in The Lancet.

METHODS makes improvements on past studies

While OA is traditionally categorized as a noninflammatory process, it’s known that there are some patients who have a clinical phenotype characterized by joint swelling (synovitis) and others develop erosive disease. MTX is one of the most common therapies for inflammatory arthritis and standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Previous studies of methotrexate showed lack of efficacy in hand OA but may have been because of the use of a low dose, poor power due to moderate sample size, and failure to target the specific inflammatory OA phenotype.

Dr. Cicuttini

In an interview, Dr. Cicuttini noted the selection of methotrexate for this trial was intentional. “We considered the evidence and decided to test methotrexate because we know it is effective in inflammatory arthritis, and its mode of action is broader than the more selective anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] agents,” which she noted have failed in prior hand OA trials. She also noted that the only previous randomized controlled trial of MTX tested a dose of 10 mg/week, rather than the 20 mg/week dose used in METHODS. 
 

Study details and results

METHODS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at multiple sites within Australia. Patients were recruited from 2017 to 2022, with a temporary pause in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic because of safety concerns regarding MTX use. Participants included in this study were aged 40-75 years, had pain in hand joints for most days in the past 3 months, and a pain score of at least 40 mm on a 100-mm VAS in the past 7 days.

The participants’ hand OA fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria, radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or more) in at least one joint, and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more in at least one joint. They excluded patients with concomitant rheumatic disease, gout, psoriasis, positive rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, or elevated inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), as well as those with contraindication to methotrexate or MRI.

The trials’ 97 participants were assigned 1:1 to MTX or placebo using block randomization. The MTX group started on oral MTX 10 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg weekly for the remainder of the study. Participants took folic acid 5 mg once a day to reduce risk of MTX-related side effects.

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, with 70% female. Baseline characteristics were generally well-balanced, except for higher mean BMI in the MTX group. At 6 months, the MTX group had a greater reduction in mean VAS pain than the placebo group (–15.2 mm vs. –7.7 mm; adjusted between-group difference, –9.9 mm). The minimally clinically important difference for OA trials is a 15-mm change (out of 100) in VAS pain.

The MTX group also had greater reduction in mean Australian Canadian OA Hand Index (AUSCAN) score for pain and stiffness at 6 months, compared with placebo, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes (mean AUSCAN, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, or grip strength).

MTX was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events related to treatment; only 5 of 50 participants in the MTX group and 4 of 47 in the placebo group discontinued study medication. Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups throughout the trial, including mild leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, mild reduction of hemoglobin, and raised creatinine. None of the laboratory abnormalities required change in medication dosage or affected ability to continue in the study. 
 

Qualifications and considerations for MTX use

Commenting on the study, OA researcher Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Thurston Arthritis Research Center, said that its overall design was “excellent,” including appropriate masking, controls, randomization, and power and sample size calculations, contributing to “the trial’s relatively positive, although still modest, results.” Dr. Nelson was not involved with the METHODS study.

Dr. Nelson

Several factors may have contributed to the study’s success, including the broader mechanism of action of methotrexate and higher dose used, Ida K. Haugen, MD, PhD, senior researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital’s Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Oslo, Norway, told this news organization.

She noted that the MTX 20 mg/week dosage is similar to what is used in treatment of RA and may be key to better targeting inflammation.

Nicolas Tourrenc

“Furthermore, the study included individuals with hand OA and synovitis by MRI, and thus may have found the right patient population in comparison to prior studies,” Dr. Haugen said.

Dr. Cicuttini agreed, noting that “previous trials [of MTX] did not target the inflammatory phenotype of hand osteoarthritis that would be expected to respond.” In the previous randomized controlled trial of MTX in hand OA, only 29 of a total 1024 joints had synovitis, she explained. “Their inclusion criteria were individuals with severe erosive hand osteoarthritis, suggesting that this later-stage disease is less likely to respond.”

Dr. Cicuttini said that she saw no specific issues in regard to potential use of MTX in the OA population in the clinic. “The data we have, together with the large experience we have with using methotrexate and the fact that treatments for hand OA are not very effective, means that it would be reasonable to offer this to patients with hand OA and inflammation,” she said. “The level of evidence for an effect of methotrexate would need to be discussed with the patient. The discussion around the use of methotrexate would then need to proceed in the same way we discuss the use of methotrexate with patients when used for other inflammatory joint diseases, and the decision is then made with the patient.”

In contrast, Dr. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the immediate use of MTX for this population. “Many individuals with hand OA have multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy, which are important when considering additional treatments, particularly those with modest benefit and potential adverse effects over the long term,” she said. “I do not think this single study provides enough evidence to suggest that all such patients should be treated with methotrexate, and more data, particularly about long-term use and optimal risk stratification, is needed.” 

While MTX use in refractory inflammatory hand OA is not yet recommended in international guidelines, Dr. Haugen believes this study supports use of MTX in this patient population. Given that MRI and ultrasound may not always be available to identify synovitis, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Haugen suggested identifying patients who may benefit through careful history and clinical examination for evidence of swollen joints. In addition, Dr. Cicuttini explained that she would not necessarily use MTX in patients with erosive OA radiographically because it may be a later stage of disease that is less likely to respond.

The authors highlighted potential limitations of the METHODS trial. They initially planned to study whether MTX reduced pain and improved radiographic progression at 2 years, but since they paused the study for 7 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, they amended the trial protocol and focused on pain reduction at 6 months as the primary endpoint instead.

Tender and swollen joint counts were initially going to be included, but this was modified given the use of virtual telemedicine visits during the pandemic. Dr. Cicuttini said that further studies are underway to identify potential subpopulations who may benefit from immunosuppression, and others are needed to determine whether MTX reduces joint damage and slows disease progression in hand OA with inflammation.

Dr. Cicuttini said her research group is interested to see whether women who develop hand OA around the time of menopause (“menopausal OA”) are a group that could benefit. Dr. Haugen noted that she is involved in a study testing MTX in erosive hand OA (the MERINO trial). 

The study was funded by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and MRI-detected synovitis who took methotrexate (MTX) 20 mg weekly over a 6-month period had a significant and potentially clinically meaningful reduction in pain and stiffness over those who received placebo in the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to show positive results with the drug.

Patients who were randomly assigned to MTX took 10 mg orally for the first 4 weeks then increased to 20 mg for the rest of the trial, with differences in the primary outcome of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) first becoming significant over placebo at 3 months.

Senior author of the METHODS study (Methotrexate to Treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis), Flavia Cicuttini, PhD, MSc, head of the musculoskeletal unit at Monash University and head of rheumatology at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, noted that the effect of MTX was higher than effect sizes that have been reported for NSAIDs on pain in hip or knee OA.

Astrid Gast/Thinkstock

The study was published online October 12 in The Lancet.

METHODS makes improvements on past studies

While OA is traditionally categorized as a noninflammatory process, it’s known that there are some patients who have a clinical phenotype characterized by joint swelling (synovitis) and others develop erosive disease. MTX is one of the most common therapies for inflammatory arthritis and standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Previous studies of methotrexate showed lack of efficacy in hand OA but may have been because of the use of a low dose, poor power due to moderate sample size, and failure to target the specific inflammatory OA phenotype.

Dr. Cicuttini

In an interview, Dr. Cicuttini noted the selection of methotrexate for this trial was intentional. “We considered the evidence and decided to test methotrexate because we know it is effective in inflammatory arthritis, and its mode of action is broader than the more selective anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] agents,” which she noted have failed in prior hand OA trials. She also noted that the only previous randomized controlled trial of MTX tested a dose of 10 mg/week, rather than the 20 mg/week dose used in METHODS. 
 

Study details and results

METHODS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at multiple sites within Australia. Patients were recruited from 2017 to 2022, with a temporary pause in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic because of safety concerns regarding MTX use. Participants included in this study were aged 40-75 years, had pain in hand joints for most days in the past 3 months, and a pain score of at least 40 mm on a 100-mm VAS in the past 7 days.

The participants’ hand OA fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria, radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or more) in at least one joint, and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more in at least one joint. They excluded patients with concomitant rheumatic disease, gout, psoriasis, positive rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, or elevated inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), as well as those with contraindication to methotrexate or MRI.

The trials’ 97 participants were assigned 1:1 to MTX or placebo using block randomization. The MTX group started on oral MTX 10 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg weekly for the remainder of the study. Participants took folic acid 5 mg once a day to reduce risk of MTX-related side effects.

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, with 70% female. Baseline characteristics were generally well-balanced, except for higher mean BMI in the MTX group. At 6 months, the MTX group had a greater reduction in mean VAS pain than the placebo group (–15.2 mm vs. –7.7 mm; adjusted between-group difference, –9.9 mm). The minimally clinically important difference for OA trials is a 15-mm change (out of 100) in VAS pain.

The MTX group also had greater reduction in mean Australian Canadian OA Hand Index (AUSCAN) score for pain and stiffness at 6 months, compared with placebo, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes (mean AUSCAN, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, or grip strength).

MTX was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events related to treatment; only 5 of 50 participants in the MTX group and 4 of 47 in the placebo group discontinued study medication. Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups throughout the trial, including mild leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, mild reduction of hemoglobin, and raised creatinine. None of the laboratory abnormalities required change in medication dosage or affected ability to continue in the study. 
 

Qualifications and considerations for MTX use

Commenting on the study, OA researcher Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Thurston Arthritis Research Center, said that its overall design was “excellent,” including appropriate masking, controls, randomization, and power and sample size calculations, contributing to “the trial’s relatively positive, although still modest, results.” Dr. Nelson was not involved with the METHODS study.

Dr. Nelson

Several factors may have contributed to the study’s success, including the broader mechanism of action of methotrexate and higher dose used, Ida K. Haugen, MD, PhD, senior researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital’s Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Oslo, Norway, told this news organization.

She noted that the MTX 20 mg/week dosage is similar to what is used in treatment of RA and may be key to better targeting inflammation.

Nicolas Tourrenc

“Furthermore, the study included individuals with hand OA and synovitis by MRI, and thus may have found the right patient population in comparison to prior studies,” Dr. Haugen said.

Dr. Cicuttini agreed, noting that “previous trials [of MTX] did not target the inflammatory phenotype of hand osteoarthritis that would be expected to respond.” In the previous randomized controlled trial of MTX in hand OA, only 29 of a total 1024 joints had synovitis, she explained. “Their inclusion criteria were individuals with severe erosive hand osteoarthritis, suggesting that this later-stage disease is less likely to respond.”

Dr. Cicuttini said that she saw no specific issues in regard to potential use of MTX in the OA population in the clinic. “The data we have, together with the large experience we have with using methotrexate and the fact that treatments for hand OA are not very effective, means that it would be reasonable to offer this to patients with hand OA and inflammation,” she said. “The level of evidence for an effect of methotrexate would need to be discussed with the patient. The discussion around the use of methotrexate would then need to proceed in the same way we discuss the use of methotrexate with patients when used for other inflammatory joint diseases, and the decision is then made with the patient.”

In contrast, Dr. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the immediate use of MTX for this population. “Many individuals with hand OA have multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy, which are important when considering additional treatments, particularly those with modest benefit and potential adverse effects over the long term,” she said. “I do not think this single study provides enough evidence to suggest that all such patients should be treated with methotrexate, and more data, particularly about long-term use and optimal risk stratification, is needed.” 

While MTX use in refractory inflammatory hand OA is not yet recommended in international guidelines, Dr. Haugen believes this study supports use of MTX in this patient population. Given that MRI and ultrasound may not always be available to identify synovitis, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Haugen suggested identifying patients who may benefit through careful history and clinical examination for evidence of swollen joints. In addition, Dr. Cicuttini explained that she would not necessarily use MTX in patients with erosive OA radiographically because it may be a later stage of disease that is less likely to respond.

The authors highlighted potential limitations of the METHODS trial. They initially planned to study whether MTX reduced pain and improved radiographic progression at 2 years, but since they paused the study for 7 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, they amended the trial protocol and focused on pain reduction at 6 months as the primary endpoint instead.

Tender and swollen joint counts were initially going to be included, but this was modified given the use of virtual telemedicine visits during the pandemic. Dr. Cicuttini said that further studies are underway to identify potential subpopulations who may benefit from immunosuppression, and others are needed to determine whether MTX reduces joint damage and slows disease progression in hand OA with inflammation.

Dr. Cicuttini said her research group is interested to see whether women who develop hand OA around the time of menopause (“menopausal OA”) are a group that could benefit. Dr. Haugen noted that she is involved in a study testing MTX in erosive hand OA (the MERINO trial). 

The study was funded by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and MRI-detected synovitis who took methotrexate (MTX) 20 mg weekly over a 6-month period had a significant and potentially clinically meaningful reduction in pain and stiffness over those who received placebo in the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to show positive results with the drug.

Patients who were randomly assigned to MTX took 10 mg orally for the first 4 weeks then increased to 20 mg for the rest of the trial, with differences in the primary outcome of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) first becoming significant over placebo at 3 months.

Senior author of the METHODS study (Methotrexate to Treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis), Flavia Cicuttini, PhD, MSc, head of the musculoskeletal unit at Monash University and head of rheumatology at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, noted that the effect of MTX was higher than effect sizes that have been reported for NSAIDs on pain in hip or knee OA.

Astrid Gast/Thinkstock

The study was published online October 12 in The Lancet.

METHODS makes improvements on past studies

While OA is traditionally categorized as a noninflammatory process, it’s known that there are some patients who have a clinical phenotype characterized by joint swelling (synovitis) and others develop erosive disease. MTX is one of the most common therapies for inflammatory arthritis and standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Previous studies of methotrexate showed lack of efficacy in hand OA but may have been because of the use of a low dose, poor power due to moderate sample size, and failure to target the specific inflammatory OA phenotype.

Dr. Cicuttini

In an interview, Dr. Cicuttini noted the selection of methotrexate for this trial was intentional. “We considered the evidence and decided to test methotrexate because we know it is effective in inflammatory arthritis, and its mode of action is broader than the more selective anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] agents,” which she noted have failed in prior hand OA trials. She also noted that the only previous randomized controlled trial of MTX tested a dose of 10 mg/week, rather than the 20 mg/week dose used in METHODS. 
 

Study details and results

METHODS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at multiple sites within Australia. Patients were recruited from 2017 to 2022, with a temporary pause in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic because of safety concerns regarding MTX use. Participants included in this study were aged 40-75 years, had pain in hand joints for most days in the past 3 months, and a pain score of at least 40 mm on a 100-mm VAS in the past 7 days.

The participants’ hand OA fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria, radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or more) in at least one joint, and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more in at least one joint. They excluded patients with concomitant rheumatic disease, gout, psoriasis, positive rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, or elevated inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), as well as those with contraindication to methotrexate or MRI.

The trials’ 97 participants were assigned 1:1 to MTX or placebo using block randomization. The MTX group started on oral MTX 10 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg weekly for the remainder of the study. Participants took folic acid 5 mg once a day to reduce risk of MTX-related side effects.

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, with 70% female. Baseline characteristics were generally well-balanced, except for higher mean BMI in the MTX group. At 6 months, the MTX group had a greater reduction in mean VAS pain than the placebo group (–15.2 mm vs. –7.7 mm; adjusted between-group difference, –9.9 mm). The minimally clinically important difference for OA trials is a 15-mm change (out of 100) in VAS pain.

The MTX group also had greater reduction in mean Australian Canadian OA Hand Index (AUSCAN) score for pain and stiffness at 6 months, compared with placebo, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes (mean AUSCAN, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, or grip strength).

MTX was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events related to treatment; only 5 of 50 participants in the MTX group and 4 of 47 in the placebo group discontinued study medication. Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups throughout the trial, including mild leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, mild reduction of hemoglobin, and raised creatinine. None of the laboratory abnormalities required change in medication dosage or affected ability to continue in the study. 
 

Qualifications and considerations for MTX use

Commenting on the study, OA researcher Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Thurston Arthritis Research Center, said that its overall design was “excellent,” including appropriate masking, controls, randomization, and power and sample size calculations, contributing to “the trial’s relatively positive, although still modest, results.” Dr. Nelson was not involved with the METHODS study.

Dr. Nelson

Several factors may have contributed to the study’s success, including the broader mechanism of action of methotrexate and higher dose used, Ida K. Haugen, MD, PhD, senior researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital’s Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Oslo, Norway, told this news organization.

She noted that the MTX 20 mg/week dosage is similar to what is used in treatment of RA and may be key to better targeting inflammation.

Nicolas Tourrenc

“Furthermore, the study included individuals with hand OA and synovitis by MRI, and thus may have found the right patient population in comparison to prior studies,” Dr. Haugen said.

Dr. Cicuttini agreed, noting that “previous trials [of MTX] did not target the inflammatory phenotype of hand osteoarthritis that would be expected to respond.” In the previous randomized controlled trial of MTX in hand OA, only 29 of a total 1024 joints had synovitis, she explained. “Their inclusion criteria were individuals with severe erosive hand osteoarthritis, suggesting that this later-stage disease is less likely to respond.”

Dr. Cicuttini said that she saw no specific issues in regard to potential use of MTX in the OA population in the clinic. “The data we have, together with the large experience we have with using methotrexate and the fact that treatments for hand OA are not very effective, means that it would be reasonable to offer this to patients with hand OA and inflammation,” she said. “The level of evidence for an effect of methotrexate would need to be discussed with the patient. The discussion around the use of methotrexate would then need to proceed in the same way we discuss the use of methotrexate with patients when used for other inflammatory joint diseases, and the decision is then made with the patient.”

In contrast, Dr. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the immediate use of MTX for this population. “Many individuals with hand OA have multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy, which are important when considering additional treatments, particularly those with modest benefit and potential adverse effects over the long term,” she said. “I do not think this single study provides enough evidence to suggest that all such patients should be treated with methotrexate, and more data, particularly about long-term use and optimal risk stratification, is needed.” 

While MTX use in refractory inflammatory hand OA is not yet recommended in international guidelines, Dr. Haugen believes this study supports use of MTX in this patient population. Given that MRI and ultrasound may not always be available to identify synovitis, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Haugen suggested identifying patients who may benefit through careful history and clinical examination for evidence of swollen joints. In addition, Dr. Cicuttini explained that she would not necessarily use MTX in patients with erosive OA radiographically because it may be a later stage of disease that is less likely to respond.

The authors highlighted potential limitations of the METHODS trial. They initially planned to study whether MTX reduced pain and improved radiographic progression at 2 years, but since they paused the study for 7 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, they amended the trial protocol and focused on pain reduction at 6 months as the primary endpoint instead.

Tender and swollen joint counts were initially going to be included, but this was modified given the use of virtual telemedicine visits during the pandemic. Dr. Cicuttini said that further studies are underway to identify potential subpopulations who may benefit from immunosuppression, and others are needed to determine whether MTX reduces joint damage and slows disease progression in hand OA with inflammation.

Dr. Cicuttini said her research group is interested to see whether women who develop hand OA around the time of menopause (“menopausal OA”) are a group that could benefit. Dr. Haugen noted that she is involved in a study testing MTX in erosive hand OA (the MERINO trial). 

The study was funded by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Among patients with asthma and comorbid gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the biologic tezepelumab (Tezspire, Amgen) had similar efficacy at reducing exacerbations, improving lung function, and symptom control as observed in patients with asthma alone, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY and phase 3 NAVIGATOR clinical trials.

GERD occurs in about 60% of asthma patients, and the comorbidity is associated with a greater risk of asthma exacerbations. “As we start doing subgroup analyses, we are looking at different comorbidities and reflux is one that’s very common and very impactful on asthma outcomes in a negative way, so it became an area of interest,” said Njira Lugogo, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). She is a professor of internal medicine and pulmonary critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The analysis confirmed other findings, with comorbid GERD associated with more exacerbations, use of maintenance steroids, and high-dose inhaled steroids. “They had more disease activity, and the effect [of tezepelumab treatment] was similar whether you had reflux or didn’t have reflux. It did seem like the people without reflux had a slightly higher reduction in exacerbations, so maybe there is a slight difference, but overall it looked like both groups were really improving,” said Dr. Lugogo.

Tezepelumab is a newer biologic, having received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2021. It targets the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which contributes allergic inflammatory responses by acting on various innate immune cells, including dendritic cells, mast cells, and CD34+ progenitor cells. It is upregulated in the airways of asthma patients, with higher levels linked to more severe disease. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene that codes TSLP has also been found to be protective against asthma, atopic asthma, and airway hyper-responsiveness.

Dr. Lugogo noted that TSLP could be a factor in how GERD may worsen trigger or worsen asthma. It is produced in the epithelium of the upper airway in response to injury, which could include aspiration into bronchial tubes attributable to GERD, and this could lead to a downstream inflammatory and immune response. “Reducing the production of or at least blocking TSLP from an epithelium that’s being irritated by acid reflux could have potential benefits. On the reverse side, could the continued presence of reflux blunt the expected response [to tezepelumab]? If someone has very severe reflux, maybe you’ve treated their asthma with tezepelumab, and they’re still having symptoms. Could it be a masquerading issue [where] you have untreated reflux contributing to ongoing symptoms, which you’re attributing to not being related to asthma? So it’s looking at it in two different ways,” said Dr. Lugogo.

TSLP is the only biologic available to treat patients with non–type 2 inflammation, which includes about 10% of adult patients, according to Dr. Lugogo. Its mechanism also influences eosinophilic and allergic asthma. When tezepelumab first became available, Dr. Lugogo noticed that physicians tended to switch to it from another biologic rather than starting it up front, but that may be changing. “I feel like more and more people are starting it up front as a therapeutic intervention, so there seems to be more and more people embracing its use in the treatment of severe asthma,” she said.

The analysis included 294 patients with asthma and GERD and 1,040 with asthma alone. Patients in the GERD comorbidity group were older (55.0 versus 48.6 years), had a higher mean body mass index (30.8 versus 27.8), and were more likely to be female (67.3% versus 63.0%).

Maintenance oral corticosteroid use was higher in the GERD group (17.0% versus 6.9%), as was use of high inhaled corticosteroid dose (78.2% versus 67.0%), frequency of nasal polyps in the previous 2 years (21.4% versus 13.8%), and experience of more than two exacerbations in the previous year (42.2% versus 34.6%).

There was a 65% reduction (95% confidence interval, 50%-76%) in annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo with tezepelumab treatment in the GERD group, compared with a 58% reduction in the asthma-only group (95% CI, 48%-66%). The drug led to a 0.10 increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second versus placebo (95% CI, 0.00-0.19) at week 52 in the GERD group, versus 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.20) in the asthma-only group. Tezepelumab also improved week 52 ACQ-6 scores in the GERD group (–0.39 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.63 to –0.14) and the asthma-only group (–0.32 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.19).

The study adds to the evidence supporting tezepelumab as a promising new therapy, according to Muhammad Adrish, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study. “I think that this is a very interesting analysis in the sense that gastric reflux disease is a frequent comorbid condition that we see in patients with asthma, and a lot of these patients can have poor outcomes. When you look at the results from the data, you see that regardless of how sick they were and how much medication utilization these patients have at baseline, they still had a pretty decent response to tezepelumab. That speaks to the efficacy of that drug along a wide spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Adrish, who is an associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies were funded by Amgen. Dr. Lugogo has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Regeneron, TEVA, Avillion, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, GSK, and Janssen. Dr. Adrish has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with asthma and comorbid gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the biologic tezepelumab (Tezspire, Amgen) had similar efficacy at reducing exacerbations, improving lung function, and symptom control as observed in patients with asthma alone, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY and phase 3 NAVIGATOR clinical trials.

GERD occurs in about 60% of asthma patients, and the comorbidity is associated with a greater risk of asthma exacerbations. “As we start doing subgroup analyses, we are looking at different comorbidities and reflux is one that’s very common and very impactful on asthma outcomes in a negative way, so it became an area of interest,” said Njira Lugogo, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). She is a professor of internal medicine and pulmonary critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The analysis confirmed other findings, with comorbid GERD associated with more exacerbations, use of maintenance steroids, and high-dose inhaled steroids. “They had more disease activity, and the effect [of tezepelumab treatment] was similar whether you had reflux or didn’t have reflux. It did seem like the people without reflux had a slightly higher reduction in exacerbations, so maybe there is a slight difference, but overall it looked like both groups were really improving,” said Dr. Lugogo.

Tezepelumab is a newer biologic, having received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2021. It targets the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which contributes allergic inflammatory responses by acting on various innate immune cells, including dendritic cells, mast cells, and CD34+ progenitor cells. It is upregulated in the airways of asthma patients, with higher levels linked to more severe disease. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene that codes TSLP has also been found to be protective against asthma, atopic asthma, and airway hyper-responsiveness.

Dr. Lugogo noted that TSLP could be a factor in how GERD may worsen trigger or worsen asthma. It is produced in the epithelium of the upper airway in response to injury, which could include aspiration into bronchial tubes attributable to GERD, and this could lead to a downstream inflammatory and immune response. “Reducing the production of or at least blocking TSLP from an epithelium that’s being irritated by acid reflux could have potential benefits. On the reverse side, could the continued presence of reflux blunt the expected response [to tezepelumab]? If someone has very severe reflux, maybe you’ve treated their asthma with tezepelumab, and they’re still having symptoms. Could it be a masquerading issue [where] you have untreated reflux contributing to ongoing symptoms, which you’re attributing to not being related to asthma? So it’s looking at it in two different ways,” said Dr. Lugogo.

TSLP is the only biologic available to treat patients with non–type 2 inflammation, which includes about 10% of adult patients, according to Dr. Lugogo. Its mechanism also influences eosinophilic and allergic asthma. When tezepelumab first became available, Dr. Lugogo noticed that physicians tended to switch to it from another biologic rather than starting it up front, but that may be changing. “I feel like more and more people are starting it up front as a therapeutic intervention, so there seems to be more and more people embracing its use in the treatment of severe asthma,” she said.

The analysis included 294 patients with asthma and GERD and 1,040 with asthma alone. Patients in the GERD comorbidity group were older (55.0 versus 48.6 years), had a higher mean body mass index (30.8 versus 27.8), and were more likely to be female (67.3% versus 63.0%).

Maintenance oral corticosteroid use was higher in the GERD group (17.0% versus 6.9%), as was use of high inhaled corticosteroid dose (78.2% versus 67.0%), frequency of nasal polyps in the previous 2 years (21.4% versus 13.8%), and experience of more than two exacerbations in the previous year (42.2% versus 34.6%).

There was a 65% reduction (95% confidence interval, 50%-76%) in annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo with tezepelumab treatment in the GERD group, compared with a 58% reduction in the asthma-only group (95% CI, 48%-66%). The drug led to a 0.10 increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second versus placebo (95% CI, 0.00-0.19) at week 52 in the GERD group, versus 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.20) in the asthma-only group. Tezepelumab also improved week 52 ACQ-6 scores in the GERD group (–0.39 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.63 to –0.14) and the asthma-only group (–0.32 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.19).

The study adds to the evidence supporting tezepelumab as a promising new therapy, according to Muhammad Adrish, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study. “I think that this is a very interesting analysis in the sense that gastric reflux disease is a frequent comorbid condition that we see in patients with asthma, and a lot of these patients can have poor outcomes. When you look at the results from the data, you see that regardless of how sick they were and how much medication utilization these patients have at baseline, they still had a pretty decent response to tezepelumab. That speaks to the efficacy of that drug along a wide spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Adrish, who is an associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies were funded by Amgen. Dr. Lugogo has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Regeneron, TEVA, Avillion, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, GSK, and Janssen. Dr. Adrish has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with asthma and comorbid gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the biologic tezepelumab (Tezspire, Amgen) had similar efficacy at reducing exacerbations, improving lung function, and symptom control as observed in patients with asthma alone, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY and phase 3 NAVIGATOR clinical trials.

GERD occurs in about 60% of asthma patients, and the comorbidity is associated with a greater risk of asthma exacerbations. “As we start doing subgroup analyses, we are looking at different comorbidities and reflux is one that’s very common and very impactful on asthma outcomes in a negative way, so it became an area of interest,” said Njira Lugogo, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). She is a professor of internal medicine and pulmonary critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The analysis confirmed other findings, with comorbid GERD associated with more exacerbations, use of maintenance steroids, and high-dose inhaled steroids. “They had more disease activity, and the effect [of tezepelumab treatment] was similar whether you had reflux or didn’t have reflux. It did seem like the people without reflux had a slightly higher reduction in exacerbations, so maybe there is a slight difference, but overall it looked like both groups were really improving,” said Dr. Lugogo.

Tezepelumab is a newer biologic, having received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2021. It targets the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which contributes allergic inflammatory responses by acting on various innate immune cells, including dendritic cells, mast cells, and CD34+ progenitor cells. It is upregulated in the airways of asthma patients, with higher levels linked to more severe disease. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene that codes TSLP has also been found to be protective against asthma, atopic asthma, and airway hyper-responsiveness.

Dr. Lugogo noted that TSLP could be a factor in how GERD may worsen trigger or worsen asthma. It is produced in the epithelium of the upper airway in response to injury, which could include aspiration into bronchial tubes attributable to GERD, and this could lead to a downstream inflammatory and immune response. “Reducing the production of or at least blocking TSLP from an epithelium that’s being irritated by acid reflux could have potential benefits. On the reverse side, could the continued presence of reflux blunt the expected response [to tezepelumab]? If someone has very severe reflux, maybe you’ve treated their asthma with tezepelumab, and they’re still having symptoms. Could it be a masquerading issue [where] you have untreated reflux contributing to ongoing symptoms, which you’re attributing to not being related to asthma? So it’s looking at it in two different ways,” said Dr. Lugogo.

TSLP is the only biologic available to treat patients with non–type 2 inflammation, which includes about 10% of adult patients, according to Dr. Lugogo. Its mechanism also influences eosinophilic and allergic asthma. When tezepelumab first became available, Dr. Lugogo noticed that physicians tended to switch to it from another biologic rather than starting it up front, but that may be changing. “I feel like more and more people are starting it up front as a therapeutic intervention, so there seems to be more and more people embracing its use in the treatment of severe asthma,” she said.

The analysis included 294 patients with asthma and GERD and 1,040 with asthma alone. Patients in the GERD comorbidity group were older (55.0 versus 48.6 years), had a higher mean body mass index (30.8 versus 27.8), and were more likely to be female (67.3% versus 63.0%).

Maintenance oral corticosteroid use was higher in the GERD group (17.0% versus 6.9%), as was use of high inhaled corticosteroid dose (78.2% versus 67.0%), frequency of nasal polyps in the previous 2 years (21.4% versus 13.8%), and experience of more than two exacerbations in the previous year (42.2% versus 34.6%).

There was a 65% reduction (95% confidence interval, 50%-76%) in annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo with tezepelumab treatment in the GERD group, compared with a 58% reduction in the asthma-only group (95% CI, 48%-66%). The drug led to a 0.10 increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second versus placebo (95% CI, 0.00-0.19) at week 52 in the GERD group, versus 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.20) in the asthma-only group. Tezepelumab also improved week 52 ACQ-6 scores in the GERD group (–0.39 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.63 to –0.14) and the asthma-only group (–0.32 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.19).

The study adds to the evidence supporting tezepelumab as a promising new therapy, according to Muhammad Adrish, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study. “I think that this is a very interesting analysis in the sense that gastric reflux disease is a frequent comorbid condition that we see in patients with asthma, and a lot of these patients can have poor outcomes. When you look at the results from the data, you see that regardless of how sick they were and how much medication utilization these patients have at baseline, they still had a pretty decent response to tezepelumab. That speaks to the efficacy of that drug along a wide spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Adrish, who is an associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies were funded by Amgen. Dr. Lugogo has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Regeneron, TEVA, Avillion, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, GSK, and Janssen. Dr. Adrish has no relevant financial disclosures.

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) make up nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. food supply and about 60% of Americans’ daily caloric intake. A significant body of research has tied consumption of these foods – awash in added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, or preservatives – to cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
 

Now, a growing number of studies also link them to poor brain health, including an increased risk of dementia, depression, and anxiety, and some experts are calling for public health policies aimed at reducing UPF consumption.

But what’s the science behind the link between UPFs and brain health and what does it mean for clinicians and their patients?
 

Under srutiny

A mainstay of diets in countries around the world, UPFs have come under increasing scrutiny because of their link to major diseases. The ingredients in UPFs add little or no nutritional value. Their primary function is to increase a product’s shelf life and palatability. Some recent evidence suggests these foods may be as addictive as tobacco. In addition, two pooled analysis studies using the Yale Food Addiction Scale showed that 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States may have a UPF addiction.

The most widely used measure of what is, and what is not, a UPF was developed in 2009 by researchers in Brazil. The NOVA food classification system assigns food and beverages to one of four groups:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, and meat.
• Processed culinary ingredients, including white sugar, butter, and oils derived from seeds, nuts, and fruits.
• Processed foods, such as tomato paste, bacon, canned tuna, and wine.
• Ultraprocessed foods, such as soda, ice cream, breakfast cereal, and prepackaged meals.

Those sounding the alarm about the potential harmful effects of UPFs are particularly concerned about their consumption by young people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that from 1999 to 2018, highly processed foods accounted for the majority of energy intake in those aged 2-19 years.

One of the most commonly used additives in UPFs, the artificial sweetener aspartame, garnered headlines this summer when the World Health Organization classified it as a likely carcinogen in humans. Aspartame is used in thousands of products, from soda to chewing gum to chewable vitamins.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly disagreed with the WHO’s position and is sticking by its recommended daily limit of 50 mg/kg of body weight – equivalent to 75 packets of the sweetener Equal – as safe for human consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” FDA officials said in a statement, adding that the agency found “significant shortcomings” in the studies the WHO used to justify the new classification. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Increased attention to consumption of UPFs in general and aspartame particularly in recent years has yielded several studies pointing to the foods’ association with compromised brain health.
 

Link to depression, dementia

A recent report on UPF consumption and mental well-being among nearly 300,000 people across 70 countries showed that 53% of those who consumed UPFs several times a day were distressed or were struggling with their mental well-being, compared with 18% of those who rarely or never consumed UPFs.

Part of the Global Mind Project run by the nonprofit Sapien Labs in Arlington, Va., the report also showed that individuals with the highest rates of UPF consumption reported higher levels of confusion, slowed thinking, unwanted or obsessive thoughts, irritability, and feelings of sadness.

“There seems to be a much broader effect than just depression symptoms,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs and coauthor of the report, said in an interview.

The report, which has not been peer reviewed, comes on the heels of several other studies, including one from the Nurses Health Study II that showed that participants who consumed more than eight servings of UPFs daily had about a 50% higher depression risk, compared with those who consumed half that much.

“We found that UPFs in general, and artificial sweeteners and beverages in particular, were associated with increased risk,” said lead investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“This was an interesting finding that correlates with data from animal studies that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” he told this news organization.

Cognition may also be affected. An analysis of more than 72,000 people in the UK Biobank showed that those who consumed a high levels of UPFs were 50% more likely to develop dementia than those who consumed fewer processed foods. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the odds of developing any kind of dementia increased by 25%.

Another study of nearly 11,000 people showed that higher UPF consumption was associated with a significantly faster decline in executive and global cognitive function.
 

Epigenetic changes

While these and other studies suggest a link between UPF consumption and brain health, they are designed to demonstrate correlation. To date, no human study has proven that eating highly processed foods directly causes a decline in mental health or cognition.

Animal studies could provide that causal link. Earlier this year, researchers at Florida State University in Tallahassee reported learning and memory deficits in two groups of male mice that completed a maze test after being fed water mixed with aspartame for about 20% of their adult lives, compared with a group of mice that drank water only. Animals that ingested aspartame could finish the test, but it took them longer, and they needed help.

The amount of aspartame used in the study was just 7% and 15% of the FDA’s recommended maximum intake of aspartame (equivalent to two to four 8-ounce diet sodas daily).

Most intriguing was that offspring of the mice in the aspartame groups demonstrated the same levels of cognitive decline and anxiety as their fathers, even though they had never ingested the artificial sweetener. Researchers theorize that in addition to changes in brain gene expression, aspartame also caused epigenetic changes in germ cells.

“Epigenetic changes in germ cells due to environmental exposures are both good and bad,” lead investigator Pradeep G. Bhide, PhD, professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at FSU, told this news organization. “They are bad because the next generation is affected. But they’re good because as long as the exposure no longer occurs, 2 or 3 generations later, that’s gone.”

The mice, which lacked taste receptors for aspartame, were the same age and weight in all three groups. Because the only difference was exposure to the artificial sweetener, Dr. Bhide says it suggests a causal link.

“Extrapolation of data from well-controlled laboratory experiments in mice to humans is always risky,” Dr. Bhide said. “The extrapolations give us insights into what could happen rather than what will happen.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Although scientists can’t say for certain how UPFs affect brain health, there are several theories. UPFs may influence an inflammatory immune response, which has been linked to depression and dementia. Consumption of highly processed foods may also disrupt the gut microbiome, Dr. Chan said, which, in turn, may increase depression risk.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” he said.

In addition, with UPFs that contain aspartame, there could be a more direct link to brain function. In the gastrointestinal track, the sweetener is quickly broken down into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. All three enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and are neuroactive.

“Phenylalanine is a precursor for neurotransmitters in the brain, and aspartic acid activates the glutamate excitatory neurotransmitter receptor,” Dr. Bhide said. “The effects we’ve seen could be due to these metabolites that have a direct effect on the brain function.”
 

Time to act?

Some researchers are building a case for classifying UPFs as addictive substances. Others are calling for additional research on UPF safety that is conducted outside the food industry.

There has also been some discussion of placing warning labels on UPFs. However, there is disagreement about what information should be included and how consumers might interpret it. The question of which food products are UPFs and which are not also isn’t settled. The NOVA system may be widely used, but it still has its detractors who believe it misclassifies some healthy foods as ultraprocessed.

Dr. Chan and other experts say the research conducted thus far requires additional corroboration to inform appropriate public health interventions. That would likely take the form of a large, randomized trial with one group of participants eating a healthy diet and the other consuming large amounts of UPFs.

“This type of study is extremely challenging given the number of people that would have to be willing to participate and be willing to eat a very specific diet over a long period of time,” Dr. Chan said. “I am also not sure it would be ethical to assign people to such a diet, given what we already know about the potential health effects of UPFs.”

Dr. Thiagarajan and others have called on funding agencies to direct more grant monies toward studies of UPFs to better understand their effect on brain health.

“Given the magnitude of the problem and given that there is a fair bit of evidence that points to a potential causal link, then we damn well better put money into this and get to the bottom of it,” she said.

Others are looking to the FDA to increase the agency’s scrutiny of food additives. While some additives such as artificial sweeteners have a place in diets of people with diabetes or obesity, Dr. Bhide suggests it may be wise for healthy individuals to reduce their daily intake of UPFs.

“Our data raise this to a different level because of the transgenerational transmission, which has never been shown before,” he said. “We are saying that the FDA should look in preclinical models at germ cells and maybe transgenerational transmission before approving any food additive.”

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

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) make up nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. food supply and about 60% of Americans’ daily caloric intake. A significant body of research has tied consumption of these foods – awash in added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, or preservatives – to cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
 

Now, a growing number of studies also link them to poor brain health, including an increased risk of dementia, depression, and anxiety, and some experts are calling for public health policies aimed at reducing UPF consumption.

But what’s the science behind the link between UPFs and brain health and what does it mean for clinicians and their patients?
 

Under srutiny

A mainstay of diets in countries around the world, UPFs have come under increasing scrutiny because of their link to major diseases. The ingredients in UPFs add little or no nutritional value. Their primary function is to increase a product’s shelf life and palatability. Some recent evidence suggests these foods may be as addictive as tobacco. In addition, two pooled analysis studies using the Yale Food Addiction Scale showed that 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States may have a UPF addiction.

The most widely used measure of what is, and what is not, a UPF was developed in 2009 by researchers in Brazil. The NOVA food classification system assigns food and beverages to one of four groups:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, and meat.
• Processed culinary ingredients, including white sugar, butter, and oils derived from seeds, nuts, and fruits.
• Processed foods, such as tomato paste, bacon, canned tuna, and wine.
• Ultraprocessed foods, such as soda, ice cream, breakfast cereal, and prepackaged meals.

Those sounding the alarm about the potential harmful effects of UPFs are particularly concerned about their consumption by young people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that from 1999 to 2018, highly processed foods accounted for the majority of energy intake in those aged 2-19 years.

One of the most commonly used additives in UPFs, the artificial sweetener aspartame, garnered headlines this summer when the World Health Organization classified it as a likely carcinogen in humans. Aspartame is used in thousands of products, from soda to chewing gum to chewable vitamins.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly disagreed with the WHO’s position and is sticking by its recommended daily limit of 50 mg/kg of body weight – equivalent to 75 packets of the sweetener Equal – as safe for human consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” FDA officials said in a statement, adding that the agency found “significant shortcomings” in the studies the WHO used to justify the new classification. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Increased attention to consumption of UPFs in general and aspartame particularly in recent years has yielded several studies pointing to the foods’ association with compromised brain health.
 

Link to depression, dementia

A recent report on UPF consumption and mental well-being among nearly 300,000 people across 70 countries showed that 53% of those who consumed UPFs several times a day were distressed or were struggling with their mental well-being, compared with 18% of those who rarely or never consumed UPFs.

Part of the Global Mind Project run by the nonprofit Sapien Labs in Arlington, Va., the report also showed that individuals with the highest rates of UPF consumption reported higher levels of confusion, slowed thinking, unwanted or obsessive thoughts, irritability, and feelings of sadness.

“There seems to be a much broader effect than just depression symptoms,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs and coauthor of the report, said in an interview.

The report, which has not been peer reviewed, comes on the heels of several other studies, including one from the Nurses Health Study II that showed that participants who consumed more than eight servings of UPFs daily had about a 50% higher depression risk, compared with those who consumed half that much.

“We found that UPFs in general, and artificial sweeteners and beverages in particular, were associated with increased risk,” said lead investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“This was an interesting finding that correlates with data from animal studies that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” he told this news organization.

Cognition may also be affected. An analysis of more than 72,000 people in the UK Biobank showed that those who consumed a high levels of UPFs were 50% more likely to develop dementia than those who consumed fewer processed foods. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the odds of developing any kind of dementia increased by 25%.

Another study of nearly 11,000 people showed that higher UPF consumption was associated with a significantly faster decline in executive and global cognitive function.
 

Epigenetic changes

While these and other studies suggest a link between UPF consumption and brain health, they are designed to demonstrate correlation. To date, no human study has proven that eating highly processed foods directly causes a decline in mental health or cognition.

Animal studies could provide that causal link. Earlier this year, researchers at Florida State University in Tallahassee reported learning and memory deficits in two groups of male mice that completed a maze test after being fed water mixed with aspartame for about 20% of their adult lives, compared with a group of mice that drank water only. Animals that ingested aspartame could finish the test, but it took them longer, and they needed help.

The amount of aspartame used in the study was just 7% and 15% of the FDA’s recommended maximum intake of aspartame (equivalent to two to four 8-ounce diet sodas daily).

Most intriguing was that offspring of the mice in the aspartame groups demonstrated the same levels of cognitive decline and anxiety as their fathers, even though they had never ingested the artificial sweetener. Researchers theorize that in addition to changes in brain gene expression, aspartame also caused epigenetic changes in germ cells.

“Epigenetic changes in germ cells due to environmental exposures are both good and bad,” lead investigator Pradeep G. Bhide, PhD, professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at FSU, told this news organization. “They are bad because the next generation is affected. But they’re good because as long as the exposure no longer occurs, 2 or 3 generations later, that’s gone.”

The mice, which lacked taste receptors for aspartame, were the same age and weight in all three groups. Because the only difference was exposure to the artificial sweetener, Dr. Bhide says it suggests a causal link.

“Extrapolation of data from well-controlled laboratory experiments in mice to humans is always risky,” Dr. Bhide said. “The extrapolations give us insights into what could happen rather than what will happen.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Although scientists can’t say for certain how UPFs affect brain health, there are several theories. UPFs may influence an inflammatory immune response, which has been linked to depression and dementia. Consumption of highly processed foods may also disrupt the gut microbiome, Dr. Chan said, which, in turn, may increase depression risk.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” he said.

In addition, with UPFs that contain aspartame, there could be a more direct link to brain function. In the gastrointestinal track, the sweetener is quickly broken down into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. All three enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and are neuroactive.

“Phenylalanine is a precursor for neurotransmitters in the brain, and aspartic acid activates the glutamate excitatory neurotransmitter receptor,” Dr. Bhide said. “The effects we’ve seen could be due to these metabolites that have a direct effect on the brain function.”
 

Time to act?

Some researchers are building a case for classifying UPFs as addictive substances. Others are calling for additional research on UPF safety that is conducted outside the food industry.

There has also been some discussion of placing warning labels on UPFs. However, there is disagreement about what information should be included and how consumers might interpret it. The question of which food products are UPFs and which are not also isn’t settled. The NOVA system may be widely used, but it still has its detractors who believe it misclassifies some healthy foods as ultraprocessed.

Dr. Chan and other experts say the research conducted thus far requires additional corroboration to inform appropriate public health interventions. That would likely take the form of a large, randomized trial with one group of participants eating a healthy diet and the other consuming large amounts of UPFs.

“This type of study is extremely challenging given the number of people that would have to be willing to participate and be willing to eat a very specific diet over a long period of time,” Dr. Chan said. “I am also not sure it would be ethical to assign people to such a diet, given what we already know about the potential health effects of UPFs.”

Dr. Thiagarajan and others have called on funding agencies to direct more grant monies toward studies of UPFs to better understand their effect on brain health.

“Given the magnitude of the problem and given that there is a fair bit of evidence that points to a potential causal link, then we damn well better put money into this and get to the bottom of it,” she said.

Others are looking to the FDA to increase the agency’s scrutiny of food additives. While some additives such as artificial sweeteners have a place in diets of people with diabetes or obesity, Dr. Bhide suggests it may be wise for healthy individuals to reduce their daily intake of UPFs.

“Our data raise this to a different level because of the transgenerational transmission, which has never been shown before,” he said. “We are saying that the FDA should look in preclinical models at germ cells and maybe transgenerational transmission before approving any food additive.”

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

Ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) make up nearly three-quarters of the entire U.S. food supply and about 60% of Americans’ daily caloric intake. A significant body of research has tied consumption of these foods – awash in added sugar, salt, fat, artificial colors, or preservatives – to cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
 

Now, a growing number of studies also link them to poor brain health, including an increased risk of dementia, depression, and anxiety, and some experts are calling for public health policies aimed at reducing UPF consumption.

But what’s the science behind the link between UPFs and brain health and what does it mean for clinicians and their patients?
 

Under srutiny

A mainstay of diets in countries around the world, UPFs have come under increasing scrutiny because of their link to major diseases. The ingredients in UPFs add little or no nutritional value. Their primary function is to increase a product’s shelf life and palatability. Some recent evidence suggests these foods may be as addictive as tobacco. In addition, two pooled analysis studies using the Yale Food Addiction Scale showed that 14% of adults and 12% of children in the United States may have a UPF addiction.

The most widely used measure of what is, and what is not, a UPF was developed in 2009 by researchers in Brazil. The NOVA food classification system assigns food and beverages to one of four groups:

• Unprocessed and minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, milk, and meat.
• Processed culinary ingredients, including white sugar, butter, and oils derived from seeds, nuts, and fruits.
• Processed foods, such as tomato paste, bacon, canned tuna, and wine.
• Ultraprocessed foods, such as soda, ice cream, breakfast cereal, and prepackaged meals.

Those sounding the alarm about the potential harmful effects of UPFs are particularly concerned about their consumption by young people. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed that from 1999 to 2018, highly processed foods accounted for the majority of energy intake in those aged 2-19 years.

One of the most commonly used additives in UPFs, the artificial sweetener aspartame, garnered headlines this summer when the World Health Organization classified it as a likely carcinogen in humans. Aspartame is used in thousands of products, from soda to chewing gum to chewable vitamins.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration strongly disagreed with the WHO’s position and is sticking by its recommended daily limit of 50 mg/kg of body weight – equivalent to 75 packets of the sweetener Equal – as safe for human consumption.

“Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives in the human food supply,” FDA officials said in a statement, adding that the agency found “significant shortcomings” in the studies the WHO used to justify the new classification. “FDA scientists do not have safety concerns when aspartame is used under the approved conditions.”

Increased attention to consumption of UPFs in general and aspartame particularly in recent years has yielded several studies pointing to the foods’ association with compromised brain health.
 

Link to depression, dementia

A recent report on UPF consumption and mental well-being among nearly 300,000 people across 70 countries showed that 53% of those who consumed UPFs several times a day were distressed or were struggling with their mental well-being, compared with 18% of those who rarely or never consumed UPFs.

Part of the Global Mind Project run by the nonprofit Sapien Labs in Arlington, Va., the report also showed that individuals with the highest rates of UPF consumption reported higher levels of confusion, slowed thinking, unwanted or obsessive thoughts, irritability, and feelings of sadness.

“There seems to be a much broader effect than just depression symptoms,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs and coauthor of the report, said in an interview.

The report, which has not been peer reviewed, comes on the heels of several other studies, including one from the Nurses Health Study II that showed that participants who consumed more than eight servings of UPFs daily had about a 50% higher depression risk, compared with those who consumed half that much.

“We found that UPFs in general, and artificial sweeteners and beverages in particular, were associated with increased risk,” said lead investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.

“This was an interesting finding that correlates with data from animal studies that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” he told this news organization.

Cognition may also be affected. An analysis of more than 72,000 people in the UK Biobank showed that those who consumed a high levels of UPFs were 50% more likely to develop dementia than those who consumed fewer processed foods. For every 10% increase in UPF consumption, the odds of developing any kind of dementia increased by 25%.

Another study of nearly 11,000 people showed that higher UPF consumption was associated with a significantly faster decline in executive and global cognitive function.
 

Epigenetic changes

While these and other studies suggest a link between UPF consumption and brain health, they are designed to demonstrate correlation. To date, no human study has proven that eating highly processed foods directly causes a decline in mental health or cognition.

Animal studies could provide that causal link. Earlier this year, researchers at Florida State University in Tallahassee reported learning and memory deficits in two groups of male mice that completed a maze test after being fed water mixed with aspartame for about 20% of their adult lives, compared with a group of mice that drank water only. Animals that ingested aspartame could finish the test, but it took them longer, and they needed help.

The amount of aspartame used in the study was just 7% and 15% of the FDA’s recommended maximum intake of aspartame (equivalent to two to four 8-ounce diet sodas daily).

Most intriguing was that offspring of the mice in the aspartame groups demonstrated the same levels of cognitive decline and anxiety as their fathers, even though they had never ingested the artificial sweetener. Researchers theorize that in addition to changes in brain gene expression, aspartame also caused epigenetic changes in germ cells.

“Epigenetic changes in germ cells due to environmental exposures are both good and bad,” lead investigator Pradeep G. Bhide, PhD, professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at FSU, told this news organization. “They are bad because the next generation is affected. But they’re good because as long as the exposure no longer occurs, 2 or 3 generations later, that’s gone.”

The mice, which lacked taste receptors for aspartame, were the same age and weight in all three groups. Because the only difference was exposure to the artificial sweetener, Dr. Bhide says it suggests a causal link.

“Extrapolation of data from well-controlled laboratory experiments in mice to humans is always risky,” Dr. Bhide said. “The extrapolations give us insights into what could happen rather than what will happen.”
 

Potential mechanisms

Although scientists can’t say for certain how UPFs affect brain health, there are several theories. UPFs may influence an inflammatory immune response, which has been linked to depression and dementia. Consumption of highly processed foods may also disrupt the gut microbiome, Dr. Chan said, which, in turn, may increase depression risk.

“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” he said.

In addition, with UPFs that contain aspartame, there could be a more direct link to brain function. In the gastrointestinal track, the sweetener is quickly broken down into methanol, aspartic acid, and phenylalanine. All three enter the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and are neuroactive.

“Phenylalanine is a precursor for neurotransmitters in the brain, and aspartic acid activates the glutamate excitatory neurotransmitter receptor,” Dr. Bhide said. “The effects we’ve seen could be due to these metabolites that have a direct effect on the brain function.”
 

Time to act?

Some researchers are building a case for classifying UPFs as addictive substances. Others are calling for additional research on UPF safety that is conducted outside the food industry.

There has also been some discussion of placing warning labels on UPFs. However, there is disagreement about what information should be included and how consumers might interpret it. The question of which food products are UPFs and which are not also isn’t settled. The NOVA system may be widely used, but it still has its detractors who believe it misclassifies some healthy foods as ultraprocessed.

Dr. Chan and other experts say the research conducted thus far requires additional corroboration to inform appropriate public health interventions. That would likely take the form of a large, randomized trial with one group of participants eating a healthy diet and the other consuming large amounts of UPFs.

“This type of study is extremely challenging given the number of people that would have to be willing to participate and be willing to eat a very specific diet over a long period of time,” Dr. Chan said. “I am also not sure it would be ethical to assign people to such a diet, given what we already know about the potential health effects of UPFs.”

Dr. Thiagarajan and others have called on funding agencies to direct more grant monies toward studies of UPFs to better understand their effect on brain health.

“Given the magnitude of the problem and given that there is a fair bit of evidence that points to a potential causal link, then we damn well better put money into this and get to the bottom of it,” she said.

Others are looking to the FDA to increase the agency’s scrutiny of food additives. While some additives such as artificial sweeteners have a place in diets of people with diabetes or obesity, Dr. Bhide suggests it may be wise for healthy individuals to reduce their daily intake of UPFs.

“Our data raise this to a different level because of the transgenerational transmission, which has never been shown before,” he said. “We are saying that the FDA should look in preclinical models at germ cells and maybe transgenerational transmission before approving any food additive.”

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