News

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

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

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

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

BERLIN — To date, mRNA vaccines have had their largest global presence in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive research is underway on many other potential applications for this vaccine technology, which suggests a promising future. Martina Prelog, MD, a pediatric and adolescent medicine specialist at the University Hospital of Würzburg in Germany, reported on the principles, research status, and perspectives for these vaccines at the 25th Travel and Health Forum of the Center for Travel Medicine in Berlin.

To understand the future, the immunologist first examined the past. “The induction of cellular and humoral immune responses by externally injected mRNA was discovered in the 1990s,” she said.
 

Instability Challenge

Significant hurdles in mRNA vaccinations included the instability of mRNA and the immune system’s ability to identify foreign mRNA as a threat and destroy mRNA fragments. “The breakthrough toward vaccination came through Dr. Katalin Karikó, who, along with Dr. Drew Weissman, both of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, discovered in 2005 that modifications of mRNA (replacing the nucleoside uridine with pseudouridine) enable better stability of mRNA, reduced immunogenicity, and higher translational capacity at the ribosomes,” said Dr. Prelog.

With this discovery, the two researchers paved the way for the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 and other diseases. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their discovery last year.
 

Improved Scalability

“Since 2009, mRNA vaccines have been studied as a treatment option for cancer,” said Dr. Prelog. “Since 2012, they have been studied for the influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV].” Consequently, several mRNA vaccines are currently in development or in approval studies. “The mRNA technology offers the advantage of quickly and flexibly responding to new variants of pathogens and the ability to scale up production when there is high demand for a particular vaccine.”

Different forms and designations of mRNA vaccines are used, depending on the application and desired effect, said Dr. Prelog.

In nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines, modifications in the mRNA sequence enable the mRNA to remain in the body longer and to induce protein synthesis more effectively.

Lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–encapsulated mRNA vaccines protect the coding mRNA sequences against degradation by the body’s enzymes and facilitate the uptake of mRNA into cells, where it then triggers the production of the desired protein. In addition, LNPs are involved in cell stimulation and support the self-adjuvant effect of mRNA vaccines, thus eliminating the need for adjuvants.

Self-amplifying mRNA vaccines include a special mRNA that replicates itself in the cell and contains a sequence for RNA replicase, in addition to the coding sequence for the protein. This composition enables increased production of the target protein without the need for a high amount of external mRNA administration. Such vaccines could trigger a longer and stronger immune response because the immune system has more time to interact with the protein.
 

Cancer Immunotherapy

Dr. Prelog also discussed personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Personalized mRNA vaccines are tailored to the patient’s genetic characteristics and antigens. They could be used in cancer immunotherapy to activate the immune system selectively against tumor cells.

Multivalent mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that codes for multiple antigens rather than just one protein to generate an immune response. These vaccines could be particularly useful in fighting pathogens with variable or changing surface structures or in eliciting protection against multiple pathogens simultaneously.

The technology of mRNA-encoded antibodies involves introducing mRNA into the cell, which creates light and heavy chains of antibodies. This step leads to the formation of antibodies targeted against toxins (eg, diphtheria and tetanus), animal venoms, infectious agents, or tumor cells.
 

Genetic Engineering

Dr. Prelog also reviewed genetic engineering techniques. In regenerative therapy or protein replacement therapy, skin fibroblasts or other cells are transfected with mRNA to enable conversion into induced pluripotent stem cells. This approach avoids the risk for DNA integration into the genome and associated mutation risks.

Another approach is making post-transcriptional modifications through RNA interference. For example, RNA structures can be used to inhibit the translation of disease-causing proteins. This technique is currently being tested against HIV and tumors such as melanoma.

In addition, mRNA technologies can be combined with CRISPR/Cas9 technology (“gene scissors”) to influence the creation of gene products even more precisely. The advantage of this technique is that mRNA is only transiently expressed, thus preventing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, mRNA is translated directly in the cytoplasm, leading to a faster initiation of gene editing.

Of the numerous ongoing clinical mRNA vaccine studies, around 70% focus on infections, about 12% on cancer, and the rest on autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, said Dr. Prelog.
 

Research in Infections

Research in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology is the most advanced: mRNA vaccines against influenza and RSV are already in advanced clinical trials, Dr. Prelog told this news organization.

“Conventional influenza vaccines contain immunogenic surface molecules against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in various combinations of influenza strains A and B and are produced in egg or cell cultures,” she said. “This is a time-consuming manufacturing process that takes months and, particularly with the egg-based process, bears the risk of changing the vaccine strain.”

“Additionally, influenza viruses undergo antigenic shift and drift through recombination, thus requiring annual adjustments to the vaccines. Thus, these influenza vaccines often lose accuracy in targeting circulating seasonal influenza strains.”

Several mRNA vaccines being tested contain not only coding sequences against hemagglutinin and neuraminidase but also for structural proteins of influenza viruses. “These are more conserved and mutate less easily, meaning they could serve as the basis for universal pandemic influenza vaccines,” said Dr. Prelog.

An advantage of mRNA vaccines, she added, is the strong cellular immune response that they elicit. This response is intended to provide additional protection alongside specific antibodies. An mRNA vaccine with coding sequences for the pre-fusion protein of RSV is in phase 3 trials for approval for vaccination in patients aged 60 years and older. It shows high effectiveness even in older patients and those with comorbidities.
 

Elaborate Purification Process

Bacterial origin plasmid DNA is used to produce mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 raised concerns that production-related DNA residues could pose a safety risk and cause autoimmune diseases.

These vaccines “typically undergo a very elaborate purification process,” said Dr. Prelog. “This involves enzymatic digestion with DNase to fragment and deplete plasmid DNA, followed by purification using chromatography columns, so that no safety-relevant DNA fragments should remain afterward.”

Thus, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut also pointed out the very small, fragmented plasmid DNA residues of bacterial origin in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines pose no risk, unlike residual DNA from animal cell culture might pose in other vaccines.
 

Prevention and Therapy

In addition to the numerous advantages of mRNA vaccines (such as rapid adaptability to new or mutated pathogens, scalability, rapid production capability, self-adjuvant effect, strong induction of cellular immune responses, and safety), there are also challenges in RNA technology as a preventive and therapeutic measure, according to Dr. Prelog.

“Stability and storability, as well as the costs of new vaccine developments, play a role, as do the long-term effects regarding the persistence of antibody and cellular responses,” she said. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, for example, showed a well-maintained cellular immune response despite a tendency toward a rapid decline in humoral immune response.

“The experience with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the new vaccine developments based on mRNA technology give hope for an efficient and safe preventive and therapeutic use, particularly in the fields of infectious diseases and oncology,” Dr. Prelog concluded.

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

Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.

Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.

A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.

Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.

However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.

“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
 

‘Herculean Effort’

“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.

“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.

The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.

The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.

The researchers found that the incidence of CP-AKI was 5.2% in the derivation cohort and 3.3% in the validation cohort. Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.

Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.

Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.

The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.

Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
 

‘Definitive Work’

Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”

“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”

In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”

An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.

By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.

All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”

“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
 

‘Certainly Useful’

Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.

As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.

“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”

Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.

Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.

Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”

If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.

Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.

Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.

A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.

Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.

However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.

“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
 

‘Herculean Effort’

“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.

“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.

The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.

The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.

The researchers found that the incidence of CP-AKI was 5.2% in the derivation cohort and 3.3% in the validation cohort. Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.

Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.

Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.

The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.

Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
 

‘Definitive Work’

Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”

“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”

In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”

An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.

By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.

All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”

“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
 

‘Certainly Useful’

Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.

As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.

“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”

Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.

Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.

Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”

If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.

Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cisplatin is a preferred treatment for a wide range of cancers, including breast, head and neck, lung, ovary, and more. However, its side effects — particularly nephrotoxicity — can be severe. Kidney injury on cisplatin is associated with higher mortality and can jeopardize a patient’s eligibility for other therapies.

Now, in a large study using data from six US cancer centers, researchers have developed a risk algorithm to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) after cisplatin administration.

A risk prediction calculator based on the algorithm is available online for patients and providers to determine an individual patient›s risk for kidney injury from cisplatin using readily available clinical data.

Other risk scores and risk prediction models have been developed to help clinicians assess in advance whether a patient might develop AKI after receiving cisplatin, so that more careful monitoring, dose adjustments, or an alternative treatment, if available, might be considered.

However, previous models were limited by factors such as small sample sizes, lack of external validation, older data, and liberal definitions of AKI, said Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, director of onco-nephrology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, director of clinical and translational research in AKI, Division of Renal Medicine, BWH, Boston.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf believe their risk score for predicting severe AKI after intravenous (IV) cisplatin, published online in The BMJ, is “more accurate and generalizable than prior models for several reasons,” they told this news organization in a joint email.

“First, we externally validated our findings across cancer centers other than the one where it was developed,” they said. “Second, we focused on moderate to severe kidney injury, the most clinically relevant form of kidney damage, whereas prior models examined more mild forms of kidney injury. Third, we collected data on nearly 25,000 patients receiving their first dose of IV cisplatin, which is larger than all previous studies combined.”
 

‘Herculean Effort’

“We conceived of this study back in 2018, contacted collaborators at each participating cancer center, and had numerous meetings to try to gather granular data on patients treated with their first dose of intravenous (IV) cisplatin,” Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf explained. They also incorporated patient feedback from focus groups and surveys.

“This was truly a Herculean effort that involved physicians, programmers, research coordinators, and patients,” they said.

The multicenter study included 24,717 patients — 11,766 in the derivation cohort and 12,951 in the validation cohort. Overall, the median age was about 60 years, about 58% were men, and about 78% were White.

The primary outcome was cisplatin-induced AKI (CP-AKI), defined as a twofold or greater increase in serum creatinine or kidney replacement therapy within 14 days of a first dose of IV cisplatin.

The researchers found that the incidence of CP-AKI was 5.2% in the derivation cohort and 3.3% in the validation cohort. Their simple risk score consisting of nine covariates — age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, serum albumin level, serum magnesium level, and cisplatin dose — predicted a higher risk for CP-AKI in both cohorts.

Notably, adding serum creatinine to the model did not change the area under the curve, and therefore, serum creatinine, though also an independent risk factor for CP-AKI, was not included in the score.

Patients in the highest risk category had 24-fold higher odds of CP-AKI in the derivation cohort and close to 18-fold higher odds in the validation cohort than those in the lowest risk category.

The primary model had a C statistic of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.73-0.76) and showed better discrimination for CP-AKI than previously published models, for which the C statistics ranged from 0.60 to 0.68. The first author of a paper on an earlier model, Shveta Motwani, MD, MMSc, of BWH and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, is also a coauthor of the new study.

Greater severity of CP-AKI was associated with shorter 90-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 3.56-6.02) for stage III CP-AKI vs no CP-AKI.
 

‘Definitive Work’

Joel M. Topf, MD, a nephrologist with expertise in chronic kidney disease in Detroit, who wasn’t involved in the development of the risk score, called the study “a definitive work on an important concept in oncology and nephrology.”

“While this is not the first attempt to devise a risk score, it is by far the biggest,” he told this news organization. Furthermore, the authors “used a diverse population, recruiting patients with a variety of cancers (previous attempts had often used a homogenous diagnosis, putting into question how generalizable the results were) from six different cancer centers.”

In addition, he said, “The authors did not restrict patients with chronic kidney disease or other significant comorbidities and used the geographic diversity to produce a cohort that has an age, gender, racial, and ethnic distribution, which is more representative of the US than previous, single-center attempts to risk score patients.”

An earlier model used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus definition of AKI of an increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL, he noted. “While a sensitive definition of AKI, it captures mild, hemodynamic increases in creatinine of questionable significance,” he said.

By contrast, the new score uses KDIGO stage II and above to define AKI. “This is a better choice, as we do not want to dissuade patients and doctors from choosing chemotherapy due to a fear of insignificant kidney damage,” he said.

All that said, Dr. Topf noted that neither the current score nor the earlier model included serum creatinine. “This is curious to me and may represent the small number of patients with representative elevated creatinine in the derivation cohort (only 1.3% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 45).”

“Since the cohort is made up of people who received cis-platinum, the low prevalence of eGFRs < 45 may be due to physicians steering away from cis-platinum in this group,” he suggested. “It would be unfortunate if this risk score gave an unintentional ‘green light’ to these patients, exposing them to predictable harm.”
 

‘Certainly Useful’

Anushree Shirali, MD, an associate professor in the Section of Nephrology and consulting physician, Yale Onco-Nephrology, Yale School of Medicine, in New Haven, Connecticut, said that having a prediction score for which patients are more likely to develop AKI after a single dose of cisplatin would be helpful for oncologists, as well as nephrologists.

As a nephrologist, Dr. Shirali mostly sees patients who already have AKI, she told this news organization. But there are circumstances in which the tool could still be helpful.

“Let’s say someone has abnormal kidney function at baseline — ie, creatinine is higher than the normal range — and they were on dialysis 5 years ago for something else, and now, they have cancer and may be given cisplatin. They worry about their chances of getting AKI and needing dialysis again,” she said. “That’s just one scenario in which I might be asked to answer that question and the tool would certainly be useful.”

Other scenarios could include someone who has just one kidney because they donated a kidney for transplant years ago, and now, they have a malignancy and wonder what their actual risk is of getting kidney issues on cisplatin.

Oncologists could use the tool to determine whether a patient should be treated with cisplatin, or if they’re at high risk, whether an alternative that’s not nephrotoxic might be used. By contrast, “if somebody’s low risk and an oncologist thinks cisplatin is the best agent they have, then they might want to go ahead and use it,” Dr. Shirali said.

Future research could take into consideration that CP-AKI is dose dependent, she suggested, because a prediction score that included the number of cisplatin doses could be even more helpful to determine risk. And, even though the derivation and validation cohorts for the new tool are representative of the US population, additional research should also include more racial/ethnic diversity, she said.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Leaf hope their tool “will be utilized immediately by patients and providers to help predict an individual’s risk of cisplatin-associated kidney damage. It is easy to use, available for free online, and incorporates readily available clinical variables.”

If a patient is at high risk, the clinical team can consider preventive measures such as administering more IV fluids before receiving cisplatin or monitoring kidney function more closely afterward, they suggested.

Dr. Gupta reported research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. She also reported research funding from BTG International, GE HealthCare, and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. She is a member of GlaxoSmithKline’s Global Anemia Council, a consultant for Secretome and Proletariat Therapeutics, and founder and president emeritus of the American Society of Onconephrology (unpaid). Dr. Leaf is supported by NIH grants, reported research support from BioPorto, BTG International, and Metro International Biotech, and has served as a consultant. Dr. Topf reported an ownership stake in a few DaVita-run dialysis clinics. He also runs a vascular access center and has participated in advisory boards with Cara Therapeutics, Vifor, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Renibus Therapeutics, Travere Therapeutics, and GlaxoSmithKline. He is president of NephJC, a nonprofit educational organization with no industry support. Dr. Shirali declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be safely extended to 15 years in adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC, a population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish nationwide registry data, researchers compared 110,074 individuals who had a first colonoscopy with negative findings for CRC at age 45-69 years (exposed group) with more than 1.9 million matched controls who either did not have a colonoscopy during the study period or underwent colonoscopy that led to a CRC diagnosis.
• They calculated 10-year standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) to compare risks for CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 29 years of follow-up, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC deaths occurred in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy.
• Up to 15 years after negative colonoscopy, the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower than in the control group, with an SIR of 0.72 and SMR of 0.55, respectively.
• Extending the screening interval from 10 to 15 years would miss early detection of only two CRC cases and prevention of only one CRC death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence for recommending a longer colonoscopy screening interval than what is currently recommended in most guidelines for populations with no familial risk of CRC,” the authors wrote. “A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Qunfeng Liang, MSc, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, was published online on May 2 in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily included White individuals, particularly ethnic Swedish individuals, so external validation would be necessary to generalize the recommendation to other populations. The researchers lacked data on non-endoscopic tests, such as fecal occult blood tests, which could have been performed as a substitution for colonoscopy during the interval between colonoscopy screenings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be safely extended to 15 years in adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC, a population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish nationwide registry data, researchers compared 110,074 individuals who had a first colonoscopy with negative findings for CRC at age 45-69 years (exposed group) with more than 1.9 million matched controls who either did not have a colonoscopy during the study period or underwent colonoscopy that led to a CRC diagnosis.
• They calculated 10-year standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) to compare risks for CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 29 years of follow-up, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC deaths occurred in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy.
• Up to 15 years after negative colonoscopy, the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower than in the control group, with an SIR of 0.72 and SMR of 0.55, respectively.
• Extending the screening interval from 10 to 15 years would miss early detection of only two CRC cases and prevention of only one CRC death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence for recommending a longer colonoscopy screening interval than what is currently recommended in most guidelines for populations with no familial risk of CRC,” the authors wrote. “A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Qunfeng Liang, MSc, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, was published online on May 2 in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily included White individuals, particularly ethnic Swedish individuals, so external validation would be necessary to generalize the recommendation to other populations. The researchers lacked data on non-endoscopic tests, such as fecal occult blood tests, which could have been performed as a substitution for colonoscopy during the interval between colonoscopy screenings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The recommended 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies may be safely extended to 15 years in adults with no family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) whose first colonoscopy is negative for CRC, a population-based study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using Swedish nationwide registry data, researchers compared 110,074 individuals who had a first colonoscopy with negative findings for CRC at age 45-69 years (exposed group) with more than 1.9 million matched controls who either did not have a colonoscopy during the study period or underwent colonoscopy that led to a CRC diagnosis.
• They calculated 10-year standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) to compare risks for CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 29 years of follow-up, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC deaths occurred in the group with a negative initial colonoscopy.
• Up to 15 years after negative colonoscopy, the 10-year cumulative risk for CRC and CRC mortality was lower than in the control group, with an SIR of 0.72 and SMR of 0.55, respectively.
• Extending the screening interval from 10 to 15 years would miss early detection of only two CRC cases and prevention of only one CRC death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides evidence for recommending a longer colonoscopy screening interval than what is currently recommended in most guidelines for populations with no familial risk of CRC,” the authors wrote. “A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Qunfeng Liang, MSc, with the German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany, was published online on May 2 in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily included White individuals, particularly ethnic Swedish individuals, so external validation would be necessary to generalize the recommendation to other populations. The researchers lacked data on non-endoscopic tests, such as fecal occult blood tests, which could have been performed as a substitution for colonoscopy during the interval between colonoscopy screenings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Up to 60% of men with erectile dysfunction who were not candidates for phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors achieved erections in less than 10 minutes after a single application of a first-on-the-market nonprescription gel to the glans, a new study found. 

Wayne Hellstrom, MD, chief of andrology at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, who presented the study of MED3000 [Eroxon] on May 5 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association in San Antonio, Texas, said that the gel is considered to be a device by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency approved the product in June 2023.

A spokesman for Futura, which makes MED3000, said that the gel will be on the market 2025. No price for the United States has been announced, but a four-pack of single-use tubes sells for the equivalent of roughly $31 in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Hellstrom, a former adviser to Futura, he said he expects MED3000 will be “a potential first-line therapy in addition to PDE5 inhibitors,” which are vasodilating drugs that stimulate the corpora cavernosa of the penis, facilitating erection with sexual stimulation.

He noted that PDE5s are contraindicated for many men; are not tolerated in others; are not completely effective; or work too slowly, taking 1-2 hours to work. As a result, up to 50% of patients cease using a PDE5 inhibitor within 1 year, he said. 

Futura said the gel contains a combination of volatile solvents which, when applied to the head of the penis, evaporate rapidly, stimulating nerve endings through an initial cooling effect followed by a warming sensation. This reaction releases nitric oxide, relaxing the smooth muscle tissue inside the penis and increasing blood flow that is needed to obtain an erection.

Dr. Hellstrom noted that MED3000 is noninvasive and causes no side effects and is slightly more effective if applied by a partner.

The new findings come from two studies of 250 men with erectile dysfunction (FM57) who used MED3000 over 12 weeks and a randomly assigned arm (FM71) with two groups of 48 men who used either MED3000 or 5 mg of tadalafil over 24 weeks.

Erections were achieved in less than 10 minutes in 60.1% of men in the FM57 group and 44.9% of those in the FM71 group.

Overall, less than 2% of the men who usedMED3000 and 4% of those who took tadalafil reported adverse effects. These events included headaches in 3% of the combined MED3000 group and 19.1% of the tadalafil group. Roughly 1% of men who used MED3000 reported penile burning sensation compared with none in the group taking tadalafil.
 

Problematic Design? 

Kevin McVary, MD, a professor of urology at Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University, outside of Chicago, and director of the Center for Male Health, criticized the study design and added that he did not believe MED3000 had been proven beneficial.

“Are they expecting the Cialis 5 mg to work within 10 minutes? Because it doesn’t,” Dr. McVary said. “It doesn’t get absorbed into the bloodstream for about 2.5 hours.”

Dr. McVary said that men with erectile dysfunction will probably do anything to avoid seeing a physician about the condition, which could make MED3000 highly marketable.

However, he said, examinations would be important to detect unrecognized underlying cardiac disease, especially in younger men. “ED can function as the classic canary in a coal mine where it tells you who’s at risk for unexpected early death,” he said.

Dr. Hellstrom is a former adviser to Futura Medical Developments, which funded the research. Dr. McVary reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.  
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Up to 60% of men with erectile dysfunction who were not candidates for phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors achieved erections in less than 10 minutes after a single application of a first-on-the-market nonprescription gel to the glans, a new study found. 

Wayne Hellstrom, MD, chief of andrology at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, who presented the study of MED3000 [Eroxon] on May 5 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association in San Antonio, Texas, said that the gel is considered to be a device by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency approved the product in June 2023.

A spokesman for Futura, which makes MED3000, said that the gel will be on the market 2025. No price for the United States has been announced, but a four-pack of single-use tubes sells for the equivalent of roughly $31 in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Hellstrom, a former adviser to Futura, he said he expects MED3000 will be “a potential first-line therapy in addition to PDE5 inhibitors,” which are vasodilating drugs that stimulate the corpora cavernosa of the penis, facilitating erection with sexual stimulation.

He noted that PDE5s are contraindicated for many men; are not tolerated in others; are not completely effective; or work too slowly, taking 1-2 hours to work. As a result, up to 50% of patients cease using a PDE5 inhibitor within 1 year, he said. 

Futura said the gel contains a combination of volatile solvents which, when applied to the head of the penis, evaporate rapidly, stimulating nerve endings through an initial cooling effect followed by a warming sensation. This reaction releases nitric oxide, relaxing the smooth muscle tissue inside the penis and increasing blood flow that is needed to obtain an erection.

Dr. Hellstrom noted that MED3000 is noninvasive and causes no side effects and is slightly more effective if applied by a partner.

The new findings come from two studies of 250 men with erectile dysfunction (FM57) who used MED3000 over 12 weeks and a randomly assigned arm (FM71) with two groups of 48 men who used either MED3000 or 5 mg of tadalafil over 24 weeks.

Erections were achieved in less than 10 minutes in 60.1% of men in the FM57 group and 44.9% of those in the FM71 group.

Overall, less than 2% of the men who usedMED3000 and 4% of those who took tadalafil reported adverse effects. These events included headaches in 3% of the combined MED3000 group and 19.1% of the tadalafil group. Roughly 1% of men who used MED3000 reported penile burning sensation compared with none in the group taking tadalafil.
 

Problematic Design? 

Kevin McVary, MD, a professor of urology at Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University, outside of Chicago, and director of the Center for Male Health, criticized the study design and added that he did not believe MED3000 had been proven beneficial.

“Are they expecting the Cialis 5 mg to work within 10 minutes? Because it doesn’t,” Dr. McVary said. “It doesn’t get absorbed into the bloodstream for about 2.5 hours.”

Dr. McVary said that men with erectile dysfunction will probably do anything to avoid seeing a physician about the condition, which could make MED3000 highly marketable.

However, he said, examinations would be important to detect unrecognized underlying cardiac disease, especially in younger men. “ED can function as the classic canary in a coal mine where it tells you who’s at risk for unexpected early death,” he said.

Dr. Hellstrom is a former adviser to Futura Medical Developments, which funded the research. Dr. McVary reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.  
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Up to 60% of men with erectile dysfunction who were not candidates for phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors achieved erections in less than 10 minutes after a single application of a first-on-the-market nonprescription gel to the glans, a new study found. 

Wayne Hellstrom, MD, chief of andrology at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, who presented the study of MED3000 [Eroxon] on May 5 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association in San Antonio, Texas, said that the gel is considered to be a device by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency approved the product in June 2023.

A spokesman for Futura, which makes MED3000, said that the gel will be on the market 2025. No price for the United States has been announced, but a four-pack of single-use tubes sells for the equivalent of roughly $31 in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Hellstrom, a former adviser to Futura, he said he expects MED3000 will be “a potential first-line therapy in addition to PDE5 inhibitors,” which are vasodilating drugs that stimulate the corpora cavernosa of the penis, facilitating erection with sexual stimulation.

He noted that PDE5s are contraindicated for many men; are not tolerated in others; are not completely effective; or work too slowly, taking 1-2 hours to work. As a result, up to 50% of patients cease using a PDE5 inhibitor within 1 year, he said. 

Futura said the gel contains a combination of volatile solvents which, when applied to the head of the penis, evaporate rapidly, stimulating nerve endings through an initial cooling effect followed by a warming sensation. This reaction releases nitric oxide, relaxing the smooth muscle tissue inside the penis and increasing blood flow that is needed to obtain an erection.

Dr. Hellstrom noted that MED3000 is noninvasive and causes no side effects and is slightly more effective if applied by a partner.

The new findings come from two studies of 250 men with erectile dysfunction (FM57) who used MED3000 over 12 weeks and a randomly assigned arm (FM71) with two groups of 48 men who used either MED3000 or 5 mg of tadalafil over 24 weeks.

Erections were achieved in less than 10 minutes in 60.1% of men in the FM57 group and 44.9% of those in the FM71 group.

Overall, less than 2% of the men who usedMED3000 and 4% of those who took tadalafil reported adverse effects. These events included headaches in 3% of the combined MED3000 group and 19.1% of the tadalafil group. Roughly 1% of men who used MED3000 reported penile burning sensation compared with none in the group taking tadalafil.
 

Problematic Design? 

Kevin McVary, MD, a professor of urology at Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University, outside of Chicago, and director of the Center for Male Health, criticized the study design and added that he did not believe MED3000 had been proven beneficial.

“Are they expecting the Cialis 5 mg to work within 10 minutes? Because it doesn’t,” Dr. McVary said. “It doesn’t get absorbed into the bloodstream for about 2.5 hours.”

Dr. McVary said that men with erectile dysfunction will probably do anything to avoid seeing a physician about the condition, which could make MED3000 highly marketable.

However, he said, examinations would be important to detect unrecognized underlying cardiac disease, especially in younger men. “ED can function as the classic canary in a coal mine where it tells you who’s at risk for unexpected early death,” he said.

Dr. Hellstrom is a former adviser to Futura Medical Developments, which funded the research. Dr. McVary reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.  
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.

Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.

Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
 

PTP-001 (MOTYS)

Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.

Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Novel Fluticasone Delivery

In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.

Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.

The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.

The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).

These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.

It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.

“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
 

PPS

Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.

“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Gene Therapy

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.

Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.

Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

The Best Is Yet to Come?

“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.

“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”

Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.

“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.

Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.

Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
 

PTP-001 (MOTYS)

Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.

Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Novel Fluticasone Delivery

In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.

Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.

The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.

The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).

These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.

It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.

“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
 

PPS

Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.

“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Gene Therapy

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.

Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.

Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

The Best Is Yet to Come?

“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.

“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”

Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.

“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.

Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.

Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
 

PTP-001 (MOTYS)

Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.

Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Novel Fluticasone Delivery

In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.

Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.

The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.

The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).

These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.

It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.

“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
 

PPS

Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.

“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Gene Therapy

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.

Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.

Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

The Best Is Yet to Come?

“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.

“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”

Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.

“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In addition to warmer weather, June will usher in changes in asthma and COPD inhaler costs for many patients, potentially reducing barriers to those seeing high prescription prices. Price ceilings have been set by some companies, likely following action earlier this year by a Senate Committee which pointed to higher costs of US inhalers compared with other countries.

Senator Sanders stated: “In my view, Americans who have asthma and COPD should not be forced to pay, in many cases, 10-70 times more for the same exact inhalers as patients in Europe and other parts of the world.”

Starting June 1, Boehringer Ingelheim will cap out-of-pocket costs for the company’s inhaler products for chronic lung disease and asthma at $35 per month, according to a March 7, 2024, press release from the German drugmaker’s US headquarters in Ridgefield, Conn. The reductions cover the full range of the company’s inhaler products for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including Atrovent, Combivent Respimat and Spiriva HandiHaler and Respimat, Stiolto Respimat and Striverdi Respimat. In the release, Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation’s President and CEO Jean-Michel Boers stated, “The US health care system is complex and often doesn’t work for patients, especially the most vulnerable. While we can’t fix the entire system alone, we are bringing forward a solution to make it fairer. We want to do our part to help patients living with COPD or asthma who struggle to pay for their medications.”

Similar announcements were made by AstraZeneca and GSK. GSK’s cap will go into effect on January 1, 2025, and includes Advair Diskus, Advair HFA, Anoro Ellipta, Arnuity Ellipta, Breo Ellipta, Incruse Ellipta, Serevent Diskus, Trelegy Ellipta, and Ventolin HFA. The AstraZeneca cap, which covers Airsupra, Bevespi Aerosphere, Breztri Aeroshpere, and Symbicort, goes into effect on June 1, 2024.
 

Senate statement on pricing

These companies plus Teva had received letters sent on January 8, 2024, by the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: senators Sanders, Baldwin, Luján and Markey. The letters cited enormous inhaler price discrepancies, for example $489 for Combivent Respimat in the United States but just $7 in France, and announced the conduct of an investigation into efforts by these companies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices of asthma inhalers that have been on the market for decades. A statement from Sen. Sanders’ office noted that AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva made more than $25 billion in revenue from inhalers alone in the past 5 years (Boehringer Ingelheim does not provide public US inhaler revenue information).

Suit claims generic delay

A federal lawsuit filed in Boston on March 6, according to a Reuters brief from March 7, cited Boehringer for improperly submitting patents to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of those patents, the suit charges, was to delay generic competition and inflate Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat inhaler prices.

Inhaler prices soared in the United States, according to a March 10 U.S. News & World Report commentary by The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization, after the 2008 FDA ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propellants led to the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers and their replacement with hydrofluoroalkane-propellant inhalers. For the insured that meant an average out-of-pocket inhaler cost increase from $13.60 per prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2015. The current rate for the now nongeneric HFA-propelled but otherwise identical albuterol inhaler is $98. Competition from a more recently FDA-approved (2020) generic version has not been robust enough to effect meaningful price reductions, the report stated. While good insurance generally covers most of inhaler costs, the more than 25 million uninsured in 2023 faced steep market prices that put strain even on some insured, the CDC found, driving many in the United States to purchase from Mexican, Canadian, or other foreign pharmacies. The Teva QVAR REdiHaler corticosteroid inhaler, costing $9 in Germany, costs $286 in the US. Dosages, however, may not be identical. A first FDA-authorization of drug importing this past January applied only to agents for a limited number of disease states and pertained only to Florida, but may serve as a model for other states, according to the commentary.

“The announced price cap from Boehringer Ingelheim,” stated Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in a press release, “is a step toward improving access to essential asthma medicine and demonstrates that the voice of the asthma patient community is being heard.” The AAFA release noted further that asthma death rates, while declining overall, are triple in Blacks compared with Whites. Death rates, asthma rates, and rates of being uninsured or underinsured are much higher in Black and Puerto Rican populations than in Whites. The complex layers of the current US system, composed of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, employers, and federal policies often conspire against those people who need asthma drugs the most. AAFA research has shown that when drug prices become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or simply discontinue their essential asthma medications. Beyond saved lives, access to asthma medications can reduce hospitalizations and lower the more than $82 billion in annual asthma costs to the US economy.

Sen. Sanders, on March 20, applauded the GSK announcement: “As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I very much appreciate GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement today that Americans throughout the country with asthma and COPD will pay no more than $35 for the brand name inhalers they manufacture. I look forward to working with GSK to make sure that this decision reaches as many patients as possible.”

“Inhaled medications continue to be an essential part of the therapy for patients with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions,” said Diego J. Maselli, professor and chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with CHEST Physician. He added, “Unfortunately, with increasing cost of these and other treatments, access has been challenging for many patients. Patients, families, and providers constantly experience frustration with the difficulties of obtaining these lifesaving medications, and cost is the main barrier. Even those with ample insurance coverage face difficult challenges, as the high prices of these medications motivate insurance carriers to constantly adjust what is the ‘preferred’ option among inhalers. Regrettably, noncompliance and nonadherence to inhaled therapies has been linked to poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization in both asthma and COPD. Because of the high prevalence of these diseases in the US and worldwide, efforts to increase the access of these vital medications has been a priority. With the leveling of the prices of these medications across the world, we hope that there will be both improved access and, as a consequence, better patient outcomes.”

In addition to warmer weather, June will usher in changes in asthma and COPD inhaler costs for many patients, potentially reducing barriers to those seeing high prescription prices. Price ceilings have been set by some companies, likely following action earlier this year by a Senate Committee which pointed to higher costs of US inhalers compared with other countries.

Senator Sanders stated: “In my view, Americans who have asthma and COPD should not be forced to pay, in many cases, 10-70 times more for the same exact inhalers as patients in Europe and other parts of the world.”

Starting June 1, Boehringer Ingelheim will cap out-of-pocket costs for the company’s inhaler products for chronic lung disease and asthma at $35 per month, according to a March 7, 2024, press release from the German drugmaker’s US headquarters in Ridgefield, Conn. The reductions cover the full range of the company’s inhaler products for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including Atrovent, Combivent Respimat and Spiriva HandiHaler and Respimat, Stiolto Respimat and Striverdi Respimat. In the release, Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation’s President and CEO Jean-Michel Boers stated, “The US health care system is complex and often doesn’t work for patients, especially the most vulnerable. While we can’t fix the entire system alone, we are bringing forward a solution to make it fairer. We want to do our part to help patients living with COPD or asthma who struggle to pay for their medications.”

Similar announcements were made by AstraZeneca and GSK. GSK’s cap will go into effect on January 1, 2025, and includes Advair Diskus, Advair HFA, Anoro Ellipta, Arnuity Ellipta, Breo Ellipta, Incruse Ellipta, Serevent Diskus, Trelegy Ellipta, and Ventolin HFA. The AstraZeneca cap, which covers Airsupra, Bevespi Aerosphere, Breztri Aeroshpere, and Symbicort, goes into effect on June 1, 2024.
 

Senate statement on pricing

These companies plus Teva had received letters sent on January 8, 2024, by the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: senators Sanders, Baldwin, Luján and Markey. The letters cited enormous inhaler price discrepancies, for example $489 for Combivent Respimat in the United States but just $7 in France, and announced the conduct of an investigation into efforts by these companies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices of asthma inhalers that have been on the market for decades. A statement from Sen. Sanders’ office noted that AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva made more than $25 billion in revenue from inhalers alone in the past 5 years (Boehringer Ingelheim does not provide public US inhaler revenue information).

Suit claims generic delay

A federal lawsuit filed in Boston on March 6, according to a Reuters brief from March 7, cited Boehringer for improperly submitting patents to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of those patents, the suit charges, was to delay generic competition and inflate Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat inhaler prices.

Inhaler prices soared in the United States, according to a March 10 U.S. News & World Report commentary by The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization, after the 2008 FDA ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propellants led to the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers and their replacement with hydrofluoroalkane-propellant inhalers. For the insured that meant an average out-of-pocket inhaler cost increase from $13.60 per prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2015. The current rate for the now nongeneric HFA-propelled but otherwise identical albuterol inhaler is $98. Competition from a more recently FDA-approved (2020) generic version has not been robust enough to effect meaningful price reductions, the report stated. While good insurance generally covers most of inhaler costs, the more than 25 million uninsured in 2023 faced steep market prices that put strain even on some insured, the CDC found, driving many in the United States to purchase from Mexican, Canadian, or other foreign pharmacies. The Teva QVAR REdiHaler corticosteroid inhaler, costing $9 in Germany, costs $286 in the US. Dosages, however, may not be identical. A first FDA-authorization of drug importing this past January applied only to agents for a limited number of disease states and pertained only to Florida, but may serve as a model for other states, according to the commentary.

“The announced price cap from Boehringer Ingelheim,” stated Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in a press release, “is a step toward improving access to essential asthma medicine and demonstrates that the voice of the asthma patient community is being heard.” The AAFA release noted further that asthma death rates, while declining overall, are triple in Blacks compared with Whites. Death rates, asthma rates, and rates of being uninsured or underinsured are much higher in Black and Puerto Rican populations than in Whites. The complex layers of the current US system, composed of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, employers, and federal policies often conspire against those people who need asthma drugs the most. AAFA research has shown that when drug prices become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or simply discontinue their essential asthma medications. Beyond saved lives, access to asthma medications can reduce hospitalizations and lower the more than $82 billion in annual asthma costs to the US economy.

Sen. Sanders, on March 20, applauded the GSK announcement: “As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I very much appreciate GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement today that Americans throughout the country with asthma and COPD will pay no more than $35 for the brand name inhalers they manufacture. I look forward to working with GSK to make sure that this decision reaches as many patients as possible.”

“Inhaled medications continue to be an essential part of the therapy for patients with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions,” said Diego J. Maselli, professor and chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with CHEST Physician. He added, “Unfortunately, with increasing cost of these and other treatments, access has been challenging for many patients. Patients, families, and providers constantly experience frustration with the difficulties of obtaining these lifesaving medications, and cost is the main barrier. Even those with ample insurance coverage face difficult challenges, as the high prices of these medications motivate insurance carriers to constantly adjust what is the ‘preferred’ option among inhalers. Regrettably, noncompliance and nonadherence to inhaled therapies has been linked to poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization in both asthma and COPD. Because of the high prevalence of these diseases in the US and worldwide, efforts to increase the access of these vital medications has been a priority. With the leveling of the prices of these medications across the world, we hope that there will be both improved access and, as a consequence, better patient outcomes.”

In addition to warmer weather, June will usher in changes in asthma and COPD inhaler costs for many patients, potentially reducing barriers to those seeing high prescription prices. Price ceilings have been set by some companies, likely following action earlier this year by a Senate Committee which pointed to higher costs of US inhalers compared with other countries.

Senator Sanders stated: “In my view, Americans who have asthma and COPD should not be forced to pay, in many cases, 10-70 times more for the same exact inhalers as patients in Europe and other parts of the world.”

Starting June 1, Boehringer Ingelheim will cap out-of-pocket costs for the company’s inhaler products for chronic lung disease and asthma at $35 per month, according to a March 7, 2024, press release from the German drugmaker’s US headquarters in Ridgefield, Conn. The reductions cover the full range of the company’s inhaler products for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including Atrovent, Combivent Respimat and Spiriva HandiHaler and Respimat, Stiolto Respimat and Striverdi Respimat. In the release, Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation’s President and CEO Jean-Michel Boers stated, “The US health care system is complex and often doesn’t work for patients, especially the most vulnerable. While we can’t fix the entire system alone, we are bringing forward a solution to make it fairer. We want to do our part to help patients living with COPD or asthma who struggle to pay for their medications.”

Similar announcements were made by AstraZeneca and GSK. GSK’s cap will go into effect on January 1, 2025, and includes Advair Diskus, Advair HFA, Anoro Ellipta, Arnuity Ellipta, Breo Ellipta, Incruse Ellipta, Serevent Diskus, Trelegy Ellipta, and Ventolin HFA. The AstraZeneca cap, which covers Airsupra, Bevespi Aerosphere, Breztri Aeroshpere, and Symbicort, goes into effect on June 1, 2024.
 

Senate statement on pricing

These companies plus Teva had received letters sent on January 8, 2024, by the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: senators Sanders, Baldwin, Luján and Markey. The letters cited enormous inhaler price discrepancies, for example $489 for Combivent Respimat in the United States but just $7 in France, and announced the conduct of an investigation into efforts by these companies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices of asthma inhalers that have been on the market for decades. A statement from Sen. Sanders’ office noted that AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva made more than $25 billion in revenue from inhalers alone in the past 5 years (Boehringer Ingelheim does not provide public US inhaler revenue information).

Suit claims generic delay

A federal lawsuit filed in Boston on March 6, according to a Reuters brief from March 7, cited Boehringer for improperly submitting patents to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of those patents, the suit charges, was to delay generic competition and inflate Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat inhaler prices.

Inhaler prices soared in the United States, according to a March 10 U.S. News & World Report commentary by The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization, after the 2008 FDA ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propellants led to the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers and their replacement with hydrofluoroalkane-propellant inhalers. For the insured that meant an average out-of-pocket inhaler cost increase from $13.60 per prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2015. The current rate for the now nongeneric HFA-propelled but otherwise identical albuterol inhaler is $98. Competition from a more recently FDA-approved (2020) generic version has not been robust enough to effect meaningful price reductions, the report stated. While good insurance generally covers most of inhaler costs, the more than 25 million uninsured in 2023 faced steep market prices that put strain even on some insured, the CDC found, driving many in the United States to purchase from Mexican, Canadian, or other foreign pharmacies. The Teva QVAR REdiHaler corticosteroid inhaler, costing $9 in Germany, costs $286 in the US. Dosages, however, may not be identical. A first FDA-authorization of drug importing this past January applied only to agents for a limited number of disease states and pertained only to Florida, but may serve as a model for other states, according to the commentary.

“The announced price cap from Boehringer Ingelheim,” stated Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in a press release, “is a step toward improving access to essential asthma medicine and demonstrates that the voice of the asthma patient community is being heard.” The AAFA release noted further that asthma death rates, while declining overall, are triple in Blacks compared with Whites. Death rates, asthma rates, and rates of being uninsured or underinsured are much higher in Black and Puerto Rican populations than in Whites. The complex layers of the current US system, composed of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, employers, and federal policies often conspire against those people who need asthma drugs the most. AAFA research has shown that when drug prices become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or simply discontinue their essential asthma medications. Beyond saved lives, access to asthma medications can reduce hospitalizations and lower the more than $82 billion in annual asthma costs to the US economy.

Sen. Sanders, on March 20, applauded the GSK announcement: “As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I very much appreciate GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement today that Americans throughout the country with asthma and COPD will pay no more than $35 for the brand name inhalers they manufacture. I look forward to working with GSK to make sure that this decision reaches as many patients as possible.”

“Inhaled medications continue to be an essential part of the therapy for patients with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions,” said Diego J. Maselli, professor and chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with CHEST Physician. He added, “Unfortunately, with increasing cost of these and other treatments, access has been challenging for many patients. Patients, families, and providers constantly experience frustration with the difficulties of obtaining these lifesaving medications, and cost is the main barrier. Even those with ample insurance coverage face difficult challenges, as the high prices of these medications motivate insurance carriers to constantly adjust what is the ‘preferred’ option among inhalers. Regrettably, noncompliance and nonadherence to inhaled therapies has been linked to poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization in both asthma and COPD. Because of the high prevalence of these diseases in the US and worldwide, efforts to increase the access of these vital medications has been a priority. With the leveling of the prices of these medications across the world, we hope that there will be both improved access and, as a consequence, better patient outcomes.”

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) this week recommended new contraindications on the coadministration of the protease inhibitor atazanavir (Reyataz, Bristol-Myers Squibb) with antineoplastic agents encorafenib and ivosidenib (atazanavir may significantly increase blood levels and thus side effects), and with the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin (which may decrease serum levels of atazanavir). 

The new rules alter sections 4.3 and 4.5 of the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) to reclassify drug–drug interactions with the new contraindications.

Atazanavir is an orally administered drug, used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (Norvir) to boost its pharmacokinetics. It is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infected adults and pediatric patients 3 months of age and older in combination with other antiretroviral medicinal products. A combination preparation boosted with cobicistat (Evotaz) is also available.

The drug is an azapeptide HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that selectively inhibits the virus-specific processing of viral Gag-Pol proteins in HIV-1 infected cells, thus preventing formation of mature virions and infection of other cells. This prevents the virus from multiplying and slows the spread of infection. Based on available virological and clinical data from adult patients, no benefit is expected in patients with HIV strains resistant to multiple protease inhibitors (four or more PI mutations).

Therapy with atazanavir is intended to be initiated by a physician experienced in the management of HIV infection, with the choice of atazanavir in treatment-experienced adult and pediatric patients based on individual viral resistance testing and the patient’s treatment history. The standard dose is 300 mg atazanavir taken with 100 mg ritonavir once daily with food.

Atazanavir is already contraindicated in combination or coadministration with a wide variety of other agents:

• Coadministration with simvastatin or lovastatin [statins – risk of increased blood levels with atazanavir].
• Combination with the anti-TB antibiotic rifampicin.
• Combination with the PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil when used for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension only.
• Coadministration with substrates of the CYP3A4 isoform of cytochrome P450 that have narrow therapeutic windows (eg, quetiapine, lurasidone, alfuzosin, astemizole, terfenadine, cisapride, pimozide, quinidine, bepridil, triazolam, oral midazolam, lomitapide, and ergot alkaloids).
• Coadministration with grazoprevir-containing products, including elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; atazanavir increases its blood levels).
• Coadministration with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir fixed dose combination (hepatitis C drug combination; increased hepatotoxicity due to increased bilirubin concentration).
• Coadministration with products containing St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum).

The EMA said detailed recommendations for the use of atazanavir will be described in the updated SmPC, which will be published in the revised European public assessment report after a decision on this change to the marketing authorization has been granted by the European Commission.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.