Federal Practitioner

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor has been the standard of care to prevent thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A new pilot study suggests that aspirin can be discontinued on the day after the PCI, and colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, could be added to reduce the risk for ischemic events in these patients, while mitigating the increased bleeding risk associated with aspirin.

Investigators conducted a pilot trial in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) who received low-dose colchicine the day after PCI, together with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) maintenance therapy. Aspirin use was discontinued.

At 3 months, only 1% of the patients experienced stent thrombosis, and only 1 patient showed high platelet reactivity. Moreover, at 1 month, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and platelet reactivity both decreased, pointing to reduced inflammation.

“In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y₁₂ inhibitors,” write Seung-Yul Lee, MD, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, South Korea, and colleagues. “This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Safety without compromised efficacy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved colchicine 0.5-mg tablets (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) as the first anti-inflammatory drug shown to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with either established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of cardiovascular events.

Patients after PCI are generally treated using DAPT, but given the risk for increased bleeding associated with aspirin – especially when used long-term – there is a “need to identify strategies associated with a more favorable safety profile without compromising efficacy,” the authors write.

Previous research has yielded mixed results in terms of the discontinuation of aspirin therapy after 1-3 months and maintenance on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy. But one trial found colchicine to be effective in reducing recurrent ischemia, and its benefits may be more beneficial with early initiation in the hospital.

In this new study, researchers tested a “strategy that substitutes aspirin with colchicine during the acute phase to maximize the treatment effect of reducing recurrent ischemia and bleeding,” they write. The Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy (MACT) single-arm, open-label proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate this approach.

The researchers studied 200 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PCI with DES (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.7] years; 90% male; 100% of Asian ethnicity), who were receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel plus a loading dose of aspirin.

On the day after PCI, aspirin was discontinued, and low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg once daily) was administered in addition to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. In the case of staged PCI, it was performed under the maintenance of colchicine and ticagrelor or prasugrel.

No other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were permitted.

Patients underwent platelet function testing using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay before discharge. Levels of hs-CRP were measured at admission, at 24 and 48 hours after PCI, and at 1-month follow-up. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and at 3 months.

The primary outcome was stent thrombosis within 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, revascularization, major bleeding, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target lesion revascularization, P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), and change in hs-CRP levels between 24 hours post-PCI and 1-month follow-up.
 

The role of inflammation

Of the original 200 patients, 190 completed the full protocol and were available for follow-up.

The primary outcome occurred in only two patients. It turned out that one of the patients had not been adherent with antiplatelet medications.

“Although bleeding occurred in 36 patients, major bleeding occurred in only 1 patient,” the authors report.

The level of platelet reactivity at discharge was 27 ± 42 PRUs. Most patients (91%) met the criteria for low platelet reactivity, while only 0.5% met the criteria for high platelet reactivity. Platelet reactivity was similar, regardless of which P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) the patients were taking.

In all patients, the level of inflammation was “reduced considerably” over time: After 1 month, the hs-CRP level decreased from 6.1 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR, 0.4-1.2 mg/L; P < .001).

The prevalence of high-inflammation criteria, defined as hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, decreased significantly, from 81.8% at 24 hours after PCI to 11.8% at 1 month (P < .001).

Major bleeding was rare, they report, with a 3-month incidence of 0.5%.

“Inflammation plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of the atherothrombotic process,” the authors explain. A series of factors also trigger “an intense inflammatory response” in the acute phase of MI, which may lead to adverse myocardial remodeling. In the present study, inflammatory levels were rapidly reduced.

They noted several limitations. For example, all enrolled patients were Asian and were at relatively low bleeding and ischemic risk. “Although ticagrelor or prasugrel is effective regardless of ethnicity, clinical data supporting this de-escalation strategy are limited,” they state. Additionally, there was no control group for comparison.

The findings warrant further investigation, they conclude.
 

Promising but preliminary

Commenting for this news organization, Francesco Costa, MD, PhD, interventional cardiologist and assistant professor, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy, said he thinks it’s “too early for extensive clinical translation of these findings.”

Rather, larger and more extensive randomized trials are “on their way to give more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of early aspirin withdrawal in ACS.”

However, added Dr. Costa, who was not involved with the current research, “in this setting, adding colchicine early looks very promising to mitigate potential thrombotic risk without increasing bleeding risk.”

In the meantime, the study “provides novel insights on early aspirin withdrawal and P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in an unselected population, including [those with] STEMI,” said Dr. Costa, also the coauthor of an accompanying editorial. The findings “could be of particular interest for those patients at extremely high bleeding risk or who are truly intolerant to aspirin, a scenario in which options are limited.”

This study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Lee reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Costa has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and has received speaker fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor has been the standard of care to prevent thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A new pilot study suggests that aspirin can be discontinued on the day after the PCI, and colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, could be added to reduce the risk for ischemic events in these patients, while mitigating the increased bleeding risk associated with aspirin.

Investigators conducted a pilot trial in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) who received low-dose colchicine the day after PCI, together with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) maintenance therapy. Aspirin use was discontinued.

At 3 months, only 1% of the patients experienced stent thrombosis, and only 1 patient showed high platelet reactivity. Moreover, at 1 month, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and platelet reactivity both decreased, pointing to reduced inflammation.

“In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y₁₂ inhibitors,” write Seung-Yul Lee, MD, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, South Korea, and colleagues. “This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Safety without compromised efficacy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved colchicine 0.5-mg tablets (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) as the first anti-inflammatory drug shown to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with either established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of cardiovascular events.

Patients after PCI are generally treated using DAPT, but given the risk for increased bleeding associated with aspirin – especially when used long-term – there is a “need to identify strategies associated with a more favorable safety profile without compromising efficacy,” the authors write.

Previous research has yielded mixed results in terms of the discontinuation of aspirin therapy after 1-3 months and maintenance on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy. But one trial found colchicine to be effective in reducing recurrent ischemia, and its benefits may be more beneficial with early initiation in the hospital.

In this new study, researchers tested a “strategy that substitutes aspirin with colchicine during the acute phase to maximize the treatment effect of reducing recurrent ischemia and bleeding,” they write. The Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy (MACT) single-arm, open-label proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate this approach.

The researchers studied 200 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PCI with DES (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.7] years; 90% male; 100% of Asian ethnicity), who were receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel plus a loading dose of aspirin.

On the day after PCI, aspirin was discontinued, and low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg once daily) was administered in addition to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. In the case of staged PCI, it was performed under the maintenance of colchicine and ticagrelor or prasugrel.

No other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were permitted.

Patients underwent platelet function testing using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay before discharge. Levels of hs-CRP were measured at admission, at 24 and 48 hours after PCI, and at 1-month follow-up. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and at 3 months.

The primary outcome was stent thrombosis within 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, revascularization, major bleeding, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target lesion revascularization, P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), and change in hs-CRP levels between 24 hours post-PCI and 1-month follow-up.
 

The role of inflammation

Of the original 200 patients, 190 completed the full protocol and were available for follow-up.

The primary outcome occurred in only two patients. It turned out that one of the patients had not been adherent with antiplatelet medications.

“Although bleeding occurred in 36 patients, major bleeding occurred in only 1 patient,” the authors report.

The level of platelet reactivity at discharge was 27 ± 42 PRUs. Most patients (91%) met the criteria for low platelet reactivity, while only 0.5% met the criteria for high platelet reactivity. Platelet reactivity was similar, regardless of which P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) the patients were taking.

In all patients, the level of inflammation was “reduced considerably” over time: After 1 month, the hs-CRP level decreased from 6.1 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR, 0.4-1.2 mg/L; P < .001).

The prevalence of high-inflammation criteria, defined as hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, decreased significantly, from 81.8% at 24 hours after PCI to 11.8% at 1 month (P < .001).

Major bleeding was rare, they report, with a 3-month incidence of 0.5%.

“Inflammation plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of the atherothrombotic process,” the authors explain. A series of factors also trigger “an intense inflammatory response” in the acute phase of MI, which may lead to adverse myocardial remodeling. In the present study, inflammatory levels were rapidly reduced.

They noted several limitations. For example, all enrolled patients were Asian and were at relatively low bleeding and ischemic risk. “Although ticagrelor or prasugrel is effective regardless of ethnicity, clinical data supporting this de-escalation strategy are limited,” they state. Additionally, there was no control group for comparison.

The findings warrant further investigation, they conclude.
 

Promising but preliminary

Commenting for this news organization, Francesco Costa, MD, PhD, interventional cardiologist and assistant professor, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy, said he thinks it’s “too early for extensive clinical translation of these findings.”

Rather, larger and more extensive randomized trials are “on their way to give more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of early aspirin withdrawal in ACS.”

However, added Dr. Costa, who was not involved with the current research, “in this setting, adding colchicine early looks very promising to mitigate potential thrombotic risk without increasing bleeding risk.”

In the meantime, the study “provides novel insights on early aspirin withdrawal and P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in an unselected population, including [those with] STEMI,” said Dr. Costa, also the coauthor of an accompanying editorial. The findings “could be of particular interest for those patients at extremely high bleeding risk or who are truly intolerant to aspirin, a scenario in which options are limited.”

This study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Lee reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Costa has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and has received speaker fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor has been the standard of care to prevent thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A new pilot study suggests that aspirin can be discontinued on the day after the PCI, and colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, could be added to reduce the risk for ischemic events in these patients, while mitigating the increased bleeding risk associated with aspirin.

Investigators conducted a pilot trial in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) who received low-dose colchicine the day after PCI, together with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) maintenance therapy. Aspirin use was discontinued.

At 3 months, only 1% of the patients experienced stent thrombosis, and only 1 patient showed high platelet reactivity. Moreover, at 1 month, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and platelet reactivity both decreased, pointing to reduced inflammation.

“In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y₁₂ inhibitors,” write Seung-Yul Lee, MD, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, South Korea, and colleagues. “This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Safety without compromised efficacy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved colchicine 0.5-mg tablets (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) as the first anti-inflammatory drug shown to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with either established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of cardiovascular events.

Patients after PCI are generally treated using DAPT, but given the risk for increased bleeding associated with aspirin – especially when used long-term – there is a “need to identify strategies associated with a more favorable safety profile without compromising efficacy,” the authors write.

Previous research has yielded mixed results in terms of the discontinuation of aspirin therapy after 1-3 months and maintenance on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy. But one trial found colchicine to be effective in reducing recurrent ischemia, and its benefits may be more beneficial with early initiation in the hospital.

In this new study, researchers tested a “strategy that substitutes aspirin with colchicine during the acute phase to maximize the treatment effect of reducing recurrent ischemia and bleeding,” they write. The Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy (MACT) single-arm, open-label proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate this approach.

The researchers studied 200 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PCI with DES (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.7] years; 90% male; 100% of Asian ethnicity), who were receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel plus a loading dose of aspirin.

On the day after PCI, aspirin was discontinued, and low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg once daily) was administered in addition to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. In the case of staged PCI, it was performed under the maintenance of colchicine and ticagrelor or prasugrel.

No other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were permitted.

Patients underwent platelet function testing using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay before discharge. Levels of hs-CRP were measured at admission, at 24 and 48 hours after PCI, and at 1-month follow-up. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and at 3 months.

The primary outcome was stent thrombosis within 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, revascularization, major bleeding, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target lesion revascularization, P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), and change in hs-CRP levels between 24 hours post-PCI and 1-month follow-up.
 

The role of inflammation

Of the original 200 patients, 190 completed the full protocol and were available for follow-up.

The primary outcome occurred in only two patients. It turned out that one of the patients had not been adherent with antiplatelet medications.

“Although bleeding occurred in 36 patients, major bleeding occurred in only 1 patient,” the authors report.

The level of platelet reactivity at discharge was 27 ± 42 PRUs. Most patients (91%) met the criteria for low platelet reactivity, while only 0.5% met the criteria for high platelet reactivity. Platelet reactivity was similar, regardless of which P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) the patients were taking.

In all patients, the level of inflammation was “reduced considerably” over time: After 1 month, the hs-CRP level decreased from 6.1 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR, 0.4-1.2 mg/L; P < .001).

The prevalence of high-inflammation criteria, defined as hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, decreased significantly, from 81.8% at 24 hours after PCI to 11.8% at 1 month (P < .001).

Major bleeding was rare, they report, with a 3-month incidence of 0.5%.

“Inflammation plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of the atherothrombotic process,” the authors explain. A series of factors also trigger “an intense inflammatory response” in the acute phase of MI, which may lead to adverse myocardial remodeling. In the present study, inflammatory levels were rapidly reduced.

They noted several limitations. For example, all enrolled patients were Asian and were at relatively low bleeding and ischemic risk. “Although ticagrelor or prasugrel is effective regardless of ethnicity, clinical data supporting this de-escalation strategy are limited,” they state. Additionally, there was no control group for comparison.

The findings warrant further investigation, they conclude.
 

Promising but preliminary

Commenting for this news organization, Francesco Costa, MD, PhD, interventional cardiologist and assistant professor, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy, said he thinks it’s “too early for extensive clinical translation of these findings.”

Rather, larger and more extensive randomized trials are “on their way to give more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of early aspirin withdrawal in ACS.”

However, added Dr. Costa, who was not involved with the current research, “in this setting, adding colchicine early looks very promising to mitigate potential thrombotic risk without increasing bleeding risk.”

In the meantime, the study “provides novel insights on early aspirin withdrawal and P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in an unselected population, including [those with] STEMI,” said Dr. Costa, also the coauthor of an accompanying editorial. The findings “could be of particular interest for those patients at extremely high bleeding risk or who are truly intolerant to aspirin, a scenario in which options are limited.”

This study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Lee reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Costa has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and has received speaker fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved palovarotene (Sohonos), the first-ever treatment for people with the rare and severely disabling bone condition fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP).

Affecting roughly 400 people in the United States and 900 worldwide, FOP is an autosomal dominant condition in which bone develops in soft connective tissue areas of the body where it isn’t normally present (heterotopic ossification), such as the ligaments, tendons, and skeletal muscles. This leads to severe restriction in mobility and function, to the point that people lose the ability to feed or care for themselves. Most are completely disabled by age 30 years and median life expectancy is 56 years, with death often caused by bone formation around the rib cage restricting respiration.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“As a clinician caring for patients with FOP, I personally see the daily challenges and stresses that our patients and their families must contend with ... since the accumulation of heterotopic ossification in FOP is progressive, irreversible, and life altering. This medication is an important treatment option for our FOP community,” said endocrinologist Edward Hsiao, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in a statement from Ipsen.

Taken orally, palovarotene selectively targets the gamma subtype of retinoic acid receptors that regulate skeletal development and ectopic bone in the retinoid signaling pathway. The drug mediates interactions between these receptors, growth factors, and proteins within that pathway to reduce new abnormal bone formation.

It is now FDA approved for the treatment of FOP in female patients aged 8 years or older and male patients aged 10 years or older. The recommended dosing is 5 mg daily or weight-based equivalent for pediatric patients under 14 years of age, which can be modified or increased for flare-up symptoms. It is contraindicated during pregnancy.

The FDA approval was based on 18-month data from the phase 3, multicenter, open-label MOVE trial that included 107 adult and pediatric patients, over 10% of the world’s population with FOP. All received oral palovarotene and were compared with untreated individuals from a prior natural history study of the condition. The drug reduced annualized heterotopic ossification volume by 54%.

Side effects were typical of those seen with other systemic retinoid drugs, including mucocutaneous events such as dryness of the skin and mucous membranes, alopecia, drug eruption, rash, and pruritus, and musculoskeletal events, such as arthralgia and premature growth plate closure in growing children.

According to Dr. Hsiao, who was a MOVE investigator, the study “showed that Sohonos can decrease new heterotopic ossification, and that palovarotene can be tolerated by many patients with FOP. Sohonos is not for everyone. As with all medicines there are risks in this case especially for young children who may develop early growth plate closure. In addition, Sohonos has the same side effects as other retinoids.”

The FDA approval of palovarotene follows its rejection for marketing authorization in the European Union in July 2023.

Reached for comment, an Ipsen spokesperson said in an interview: “We reached the end of the regulatory process in the European Union for Sohonos and are disappointed the European Commission decided not to approved palovarotene for people with FOP in Europe.”

The company is developing another drug, fidrisertib, for treating FOP. A pivotal phase 2 trial for that drug is now recruiting patients. Asked where Ipsen might try to market fidrisertib, the spokesperson replied:“At this point, our focus is on the completion of the pivotal trial.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, the FOP community is celebrating the palovarotene approval. In a statement, Michelle Davis, executive director of the International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association, said: “FOP is life altering to the individuals diagnosed and their families. There’s not a day that goes by where those impacted don’t worry about the debilitating physical pain of muscle that is replaced by bone, another joint locking, or the relentless emotional toll of losing the ability to do an activity they love, or hold a loved one close. ... The first treatment for FOP has been proven to reduce the volume of new abnormal bone growth, which may result in better health outcomes for people living with FOP.”

Ipsen is offering a patient support program to assist with education, coverage, and reimbursement (1-866-435-5677).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved palovarotene (Sohonos), the first-ever treatment for people with the rare and severely disabling bone condition fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP).

Affecting roughly 400 people in the United States and 900 worldwide, FOP is an autosomal dominant condition in which bone develops in soft connective tissue areas of the body where it isn’t normally present (heterotopic ossification), such as the ligaments, tendons, and skeletal muscles. This leads to severe restriction in mobility and function, to the point that people lose the ability to feed or care for themselves. Most are completely disabled by age 30 years and median life expectancy is 56 years, with death often caused by bone formation around the rib cage restricting respiration.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“As a clinician caring for patients with FOP, I personally see the daily challenges and stresses that our patients and their families must contend with ... since the accumulation of heterotopic ossification in FOP is progressive, irreversible, and life altering. This medication is an important treatment option for our FOP community,” said endocrinologist Edward Hsiao, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in a statement from Ipsen.

Taken orally, palovarotene selectively targets the gamma subtype of retinoic acid receptors that regulate skeletal development and ectopic bone in the retinoid signaling pathway. The drug mediates interactions between these receptors, growth factors, and proteins within that pathway to reduce new abnormal bone formation.

It is now FDA approved for the treatment of FOP in female patients aged 8 years or older and male patients aged 10 years or older. The recommended dosing is 5 mg daily or weight-based equivalent for pediatric patients under 14 years of age, which can be modified or increased for flare-up symptoms. It is contraindicated during pregnancy.

The FDA approval was based on 18-month data from the phase 3, multicenter, open-label MOVE trial that included 107 adult and pediatric patients, over 10% of the world’s population with FOP. All received oral palovarotene and were compared with untreated individuals from a prior natural history study of the condition. The drug reduced annualized heterotopic ossification volume by 54%.

Side effects were typical of those seen with other systemic retinoid drugs, including mucocutaneous events such as dryness of the skin and mucous membranes, alopecia, drug eruption, rash, and pruritus, and musculoskeletal events, such as arthralgia and premature growth plate closure in growing children.

According to Dr. Hsiao, who was a MOVE investigator, the study “showed that Sohonos can decrease new heterotopic ossification, and that palovarotene can be tolerated by many patients with FOP. Sohonos is not for everyone. As with all medicines there are risks in this case especially for young children who may develop early growth plate closure. In addition, Sohonos has the same side effects as other retinoids.”

The FDA approval of palovarotene follows its rejection for marketing authorization in the European Union in July 2023.

Reached for comment, an Ipsen spokesperson said in an interview: “We reached the end of the regulatory process in the European Union for Sohonos and are disappointed the European Commission decided not to approved palovarotene for people with FOP in Europe.”

The company is developing another drug, fidrisertib, for treating FOP. A pivotal phase 2 trial for that drug is now recruiting patients. Asked where Ipsen might try to market fidrisertib, the spokesperson replied:“At this point, our focus is on the completion of the pivotal trial.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, the FOP community is celebrating the palovarotene approval. In a statement, Michelle Davis, executive director of the International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association, said: “FOP is life altering to the individuals diagnosed and their families. There’s not a day that goes by where those impacted don’t worry about the debilitating physical pain of muscle that is replaced by bone, another joint locking, or the relentless emotional toll of losing the ability to do an activity they love, or hold a loved one close. ... The first treatment for FOP has been proven to reduce the volume of new abnormal bone growth, which may result in better health outcomes for people living with FOP.”

Ipsen is offering a patient support program to assist with education, coverage, and reimbursement (1-866-435-5677).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved palovarotene (Sohonos), the first-ever treatment for people with the rare and severely disabling bone condition fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP).

Affecting roughly 400 people in the United States and 900 worldwide, FOP is an autosomal dominant condition in which bone develops in soft connective tissue areas of the body where it isn’t normally present (heterotopic ossification), such as the ligaments, tendons, and skeletal muscles. This leads to severe restriction in mobility and function, to the point that people lose the ability to feed or care for themselves. Most are completely disabled by age 30 years and median life expectancy is 56 years, with death often caused by bone formation around the rib cage restricting respiration.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“As a clinician caring for patients with FOP, I personally see the daily challenges and stresses that our patients and their families must contend with ... since the accumulation of heterotopic ossification in FOP is progressive, irreversible, and life altering. This medication is an important treatment option for our FOP community,” said endocrinologist Edward Hsiao, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in a statement from Ipsen.

Taken orally, palovarotene selectively targets the gamma subtype of retinoic acid receptors that regulate skeletal development and ectopic bone in the retinoid signaling pathway. The drug mediates interactions between these receptors, growth factors, and proteins within that pathway to reduce new abnormal bone formation.

It is now FDA approved for the treatment of FOP in female patients aged 8 years or older and male patients aged 10 years or older. The recommended dosing is 5 mg daily or weight-based equivalent for pediatric patients under 14 years of age, which can be modified or increased for flare-up symptoms. It is contraindicated during pregnancy.

The FDA approval was based on 18-month data from the phase 3, multicenter, open-label MOVE trial that included 107 adult and pediatric patients, over 10% of the world’s population with FOP. All received oral palovarotene and were compared with untreated individuals from a prior natural history study of the condition. The drug reduced annualized heterotopic ossification volume by 54%.

Side effects were typical of those seen with other systemic retinoid drugs, including mucocutaneous events such as dryness of the skin and mucous membranes, alopecia, drug eruption, rash, and pruritus, and musculoskeletal events, such as arthralgia and premature growth plate closure in growing children.

According to Dr. Hsiao, who was a MOVE investigator, the study “showed that Sohonos can decrease new heterotopic ossification, and that palovarotene can be tolerated by many patients with FOP. Sohonos is not for everyone. As with all medicines there are risks in this case especially for young children who may develop early growth plate closure. In addition, Sohonos has the same side effects as other retinoids.”

The FDA approval of palovarotene follows its rejection for marketing authorization in the European Union in July 2023.

Reached for comment, an Ipsen spokesperson said in an interview: “We reached the end of the regulatory process in the European Union for Sohonos and are disappointed the European Commission decided not to approved palovarotene for people with FOP in Europe.”

The company is developing another drug, fidrisertib, for treating FOP. A pivotal phase 2 trial for that drug is now recruiting patients. Asked where Ipsen might try to market fidrisertib, the spokesperson replied:“At this point, our focus is on the completion of the pivotal trial.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, the FOP community is celebrating the palovarotene approval. In a statement, Michelle Davis, executive director of the International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association, said: “FOP is life altering to the individuals diagnosed and their families. There’s not a day that goes by where those impacted don’t worry about the debilitating physical pain of muscle that is replaced by bone, another joint locking, or the relentless emotional toll of losing the ability to do an activity they love, or hold a loved one close. ... The first treatment for FOP has been proven to reduce the volume of new abnormal bone growth, which may result in better health outcomes for people living with FOP.”

Ipsen is offering a patient support program to assist with education, coverage, and reimbursement (1-866-435-5677).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sunday night. Las Vegas. Jason Aldean had just started playing.

My wife and I were at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival with three other couples; two of them were our close friends. We were sitting in the VIP section, a tented area right next to the stage. We started hearing what I was convinced were fireworks.

I’ve been in the Army for 20 some years. I’ve been deployed and shot at multiple times. But these shots were far away. And you don’t expect people to be shooting at you at a concert.

I was on the edge of the VIP area, so I could see around the corner of the tent. I looked up at the Mandalay Bay and saw the muzzle flash in the hotel window. That’s when I knew.

I screamed: “Somebody’s shooting at us! Everybody get down!”

It took a while for people to realize what was going on. When the first couple volleys sprayed into the crowd, nobody understood. But once enough people had been hit and dropped, everyone knew, and it was just mass exodus.

People screamed and ran everywhere. Some of them tried to jump over the front barrier so they could get underneath the stage. Others were trying to pick up loved ones who’d been shot.

The next 15 minutes are a little foggy. I was helping my wife and the people around us to get down. Funny things come back to you afterward. One of my friends was carrying a 16-ounce beer in his hand. Somebody’s shooting at him and he’s walking around with his beer like he’s afraid to put it down. It was so surreal.

We got everybody underneath the tent, and then we just sat there. There would be shooting and then a pause. You’d think it was over. And then there would be more shooting and another pause. It felt like it never was going to stop.

After a short period of time, somebody came in with an official badge, maybe FBI, who knows. They said: “Okay, everybody up. We’ve got to get you out of here.” So, we all got up and headed across the stage. The gate they were taking us to was in full view of the shooter, so it wasn’t very safe.

As I got up, I looked out at the field. Bodies were scattered everywhere. I’m a trauma surgeon by trade. I couldn’t just leave.

I told my two best friends to take my wife with them. My wife lost her mind at that point. She didn’t want me to run out on the field. But I had to. I saw the injured and they needed help. Another buddy and I jumped over the fence and started taking care of people.

The feeling of being out on the field was one of complete frustration. I was in sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt. We had no stretchers, no medical supplies, no nothing. I didn’t have a belt to use as a tourniquet. I didn’t even have a bandage.

Worse: We were seeing high-velocity gunshot wounds that I’ve seen for 20 years in the Army. I know how to take care of them. I know how to fix them. But there wasn’t a single thing I could do.

We had to get people off the field, so we started gathering up as many as we could. We didn’t know if we were going to get shot at again, so we were trying to hide behind things as we ran. Our main objective was just to get people to a place of safety.

A lot of it is a blur. But a few patients stick out in my mind.

A father and son. The father had been shot through the abdomen, exited out through his back. He was in severe pain and couldn’t walk.

A young girl shot in the arm. Her parents carrying her.

A group of people doing CPR on a young lady. She had a gunshot wound to the head or neck. She was obviously dead. But they were still doing chest compressions in the middle of the field. I had to say to them: “She’s dead. You can’t save her. You need to get off the field.” But they wouldn’t stop. We picked her up and took her out while they continued to do CPR.

Later, I realized I knew that woman. She was part of a group of friends that we would see at the festival. I hadn’t recognized her. I also didn’t know that my friend Marco was there. A month or 2 later, we figured out that he was one of the people doing CPR. And I was the guy who came up and said his friend was dead.

Some people were so badly injured we couldn’t lift them. We started tearing apart the fencing used to separate the crowd and slid sections of the barricades under the wounded to carry them. We also carried off a bunch of people who were dead.

We were moving patients to a covered bar area where we thought they would be safer. What we didn’t know was there was an ambulance rally point at the very far end of the field. Unfortunately, we had no idea it was there.

I saw a lot of other first responders out there, people from the fire department, corpsmen from the Navy, medics. I ran into an anesthesia provider and a series of nurses.

When we got everybody off the field, we started moving them into vehicles. People were bringing their trucks up. One guy even stole a truck so he could drive people to the ED. There wasn’t a lot of triage. We were just stacking whoever we could into the backs of these pickups.

I tried to help a nurse taking care of a lady who had been shot in the neck. She was sitting sort of half upright with the patient lying in her arms. When I reached to help her, she said: “You can’t move her.”

“We need to get her to the hospital,” I replied.

“This is the only position that this lady has an airway,” she said. “You’re going to have to move both of us together. If I move at all, she loses her airway.”

So, a group of us managed to slide something underneath and lift them into the back of a truck.

Loading the wounded went on for a while. And then, just like that, everybody was gone.

I walked back out onto this field which not too long ago held 30,000 people. It was as if aliens had just suddenly beamed everyone out.

There was stuff on the ground everywhere – blankets, clothing, single boots, wallets, purses. I walked past a food stand with food still cooking on the grill. There was a beer tap still running. It was the weirdest feeling I’d ever had in my life.

After that, things got a little crazy again. There had been a report of a second shooter, and no one knew if it was real or not. The police started herding a group of us across the street to the Tropicana. We were still trying to take cover as we walked there. We went past a big lion statue in front of one of the casinos. I have a picture from two years earlier of me sitting on the back of that lion. I remember thinking: Now I’m hunkered down behind the same lion hiding from a shooter. Times change.

They brought about 50 of us into a food court, which was closed. They wouldn’t tell us what was going on. And they wouldn’t let us leave. This went on for hours. Meanwhile, I had dropped my cell phone on the field, so my wife couldn’t get hold of me, and later she told me she assumed I’d been shot. I was just hoping that she was safe.

People were huddled together, crying, holding each other. Most were wearing Western concert–going stuff, which for a lot of them wasn’t very much clothing. The hotel eventually brought some blankets.

I was covered in blood. My shirt, shorts, and sandals were soaked. It was running down my legs. I couldn’t find anything to eat or drink. At one point, I sat down at a slot machine, put a hundred dollars in, and started playing slots. I didn’t know what else to do. It didn’t take me very long to lose it all.

Finally, I started looking for a way to get out. I checked all the exits, but there were security and police there. Then I ran into a guy who said he had found a fire exit. When we opened the fire door, there was a big security guard there, and he said: “You can’t leave.”

We said: “Try to stop us. We’re out of here.”

Another thing I’ll always remember – after I broke out of the Tropicana, I was low crawling through the bushes along the Strip toward my hotel. I got a block away and stood up to cross the street. I pushed the crosswalk button and waited. There were no cars, no people. I’ve just broken all the rules, violated police orders, and now I’m standing there waiting for a blinking light to allow me to cross the street!

I made it back to my hotel room around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. My wife was hysterical because I hadn’t been answering my cell phone. I came in, and she gave me a big hug, and I got in the shower. Our plane was leaving in a few hours, so we laid down, but didn’t sleep.

As we were getting ready to leave, my wife’s phone rang, and it was my number. A guy at the same hotel had found my phone on the field and called the “in case of emergency” number. So, I got my phone back.

It wasn’t easy to deal with the aftermath. It really affected everybody’s life. To this day, I’m particular about where we sit at concerts. My wife isn’t comfortable if she can’t see an exit. I now have a med bag in my car with tourniquets, pressure dressings, airway masks for CPR.

I’ll never forget that feeling of absolute frustration. That lady without an airway – I could’ve put a trach in her very quickly and made a difference. Were they able to keep her airway? Did she live?

The father and son – did the father make it? I have no idea what happened to any of them. Later, I went through and looked at the pictures of all the people who had died, but I couldn’t recognize anybody.

The hardest part was being there with my wife. I’ve been in places where people are shooting at you, in vehicles that are getting bombed. I’ve always believed that when it’s your time, it’s your time. If I get shot, well, okay, that happens. But if she got shot or my friends ... that would be really tough.

A year later, I gave a talk about it at a conference. I thought I had worked through everything. But all of those feelings, all of that helplessness, that anger, everything came roaring back to the surface again. They asked me how I deal with it, and I said: “Well ... poorly.” I’m the guy who sticks it in a box in the back of his brain, tucks it in and buries it with a bunch of other boxes, and hopes it never comes out again. But every once in a while, it does.

There were all kinds of people out on that field, some with medical training, some without, all determined to help, trying to get those injured people where they needed to be. In retrospect, it does make you feel good. Somebody was shooting at us, but people were still willing to stand up and risk their lives to help others.

We still talk with our friends about what happened that night. Over the years, it’s become less and less. But there’s still a text sent out every year on that day: “Today is the anniversary. Glad we’re all alive. Thanks for being our friends.”

Dr. Sebesta is a bariatric surgeon with MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

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

Sunday night. Las Vegas. Jason Aldean had just started playing.

My wife and I were at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival with three other couples; two of them were our close friends. We were sitting in the VIP section, a tented area right next to the stage. We started hearing what I was convinced were fireworks.

I’ve been in the Army for 20 some years. I’ve been deployed and shot at multiple times. But these shots were far away. And you don’t expect people to be shooting at you at a concert.

I was on the edge of the VIP area, so I could see around the corner of the tent. I looked up at the Mandalay Bay and saw the muzzle flash in the hotel window. That’s when I knew.

I screamed: “Somebody’s shooting at us! Everybody get down!”

It took a while for people to realize what was going on. When the first couple volleys sprayed into the crowd, nobody understood. But once enough people had been hit and dropped, everyone knew, and it was just mass exodus.

People screamed and ran everywhere. Some of them tried to jump over the front barrier so they could get underneath the stage. Others were trying to pick up loved ones who’d been shot.

The next 15 minutes are a little foggy. I was helping my wife and the people around us to get down. Funny things come back to you afterward. One of my friends was carrying a 16-ounce beer in his hand. Somebody’s shooting at him and he’s walking around with his beer like he’s afraid to put it down. It was so surreal.

We got everybody underneath the tent, and then we just sat there. There would be shooting and then a pause. You’d think it was over. And then there would be more shooting and another pause. It felt like it never was going to stop.

After a short period of time, somebody came in with an official badge, maybe FBI, who knows. They said: “Okay, everybody up. We’ve got to get you out of here.” So, we all got up and headed across the stage. The gate they were taking us to was in full view of the shooter, so it wasn’t very safe.

As I got up, I looked out at the field. Bodies were scattered everywhere. I’m a trauma surgeon by trade. I couldn’t just leave.

I told my two best friends to take my wife with them. My wife lost her mind at that point. She didn’t want me to run out on the field. But I had to. I saw the injured and they needed help. Another buddy and I jumped over the fence and started taking care of people.

The feeling of being out on the field was one of complete frustration. I was in sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt. We had no stretchers, no medical supplies, no nothing. I didn’t have a belt to use as a tourniquet. I didn’t even have a bandage.

Worse: We were seeing high-velocity gunshot wounds that I’ve seen for 20 years in the Army. I know how to take care of them. I know how to fix them. But there wasn’t a single thing I could do.

We had to get people off the field, so we started gathering up as many as we could. We didn’t know if we were going to get shot at again, so we were trying to hide behind things as we ran. Our main objective was just to get people to a place of safety.

A lot of it is a blur. But a few patients stick out in my mind.

A father and son. The father had been shot through the abdomen, exited out through his back. He was in severe pain and couldn’t walk.

A young girl shot in the arm. Her parents carrying her.

A group of people doing CPR on a young lady. She had a gunshot wound to the head or neck. She was obviously dead. But they were still doing chest compressions in the middle of the field. I had to say to them: “She’s dead. You can’t save her. You need to get off the field.” But they wouldn’t stop. We picked her up and took her out while they continued to do CPR.

Later, I realized I knew that woman. She was part of a group of friends that we would see at the festival. I hadn’t recognized her. I also didn’t know that my friend Marco was there. A month or 2 later, we figured out that he was one of the people doing CPR. And I was the guy who came up and said his friend was dead.

Some people were so badly injured we couldn’t lift them. We started tearing apart the fencing used to separate the crowd and slid sections of the barricades under the wounded to carry them. We also carried off a bunch of people who were dead.

We were moving patients to a covered bar area where we thought they would be safer. What we didn’t know was there was an ambulance rally point at the very far end of the field. Unfortunately, we had no idea it was there.

I saw a lot of other first responders out there, people from the fire department, corpsmen from the Navy, medics. I ran into an anesthesia provider and a series of nurses.

When we got everybody off the field, we started moving them into vehicles. People were bringing their trucks up. One guy even stole a truck so he could drive people to the ED. There wasn’t a lot of triage. We were just stacking whoever we could into the backs of these pickups.

I tried to help a nurse taking care of a lady who had been shot in the neck. She was sitting sort of half upright with the patient lying in her arms. When I reached to help her, she said: “You can’t move her.”

“We need to get her to the hospital,” I replied.

“This is the only position that this lady has an airway,” she said. “You’re going to have to move both of us together. If I move at all, she loses her airway.”

So, a group of us managed to slide something underneath and lift them into the back of a truck.

Loading the wounded went on for a while. And then, just like that, everybody was gone.

I walked back out onto this field which not too long ago held 30,000 people. It was as if aliens had just suddenly beamed everyone out.

There was stuff on the ground everywhere – blankets, clothing, single boots, wallets, purses. I walked past a food stand with food still cooking on the grill. There was a beer tap still running. It was the weirdest feeling I’d ever had in my life.

After that, things got a little crazy again. There had been a report of a second shooter, and no one knew if it was real or not. The police started herding a group of us across the street to the Tropicana. We were still trying to take cover as we walked there. We went past a big lion statue in front of one of the casinos. I have a picture from two years earlier of me sitting on the back of that lion. I remember thinking: Now I’m hunkered down behind the same lion hiding from a shooter. Times change.

They brought about 50 of us into a food court, which was closed. They wouldn’t tell us what was going on. And they wouldn’t let us leave. This went on for hours. Meanwhile, I had dropped my cell phone on the field, so my wife couldn’t get hold of me, and later she told me she assumed I’d been shot. I was just hoping that she was safe.

People were huddled together, crying, holding each other. Most were wearing Western concert–going stuff, which for a lot of them wasn’t very much clothing. The hotel eventually brought some blankets.

I was covered in blood. My shirt, shorts, and sandals were soaked. It was running down my legs. I couldn’t find anything to eat or drink. At one point, I sat down at a slot machine, put a hundred dollars in, and started playing slots. I didn’t know what else to do. It didn’t take me very long to lose it all.

Finally, I started looking for a way to get out. I checked all the exits, but there were security and police there. Then I ran into a guy who said he had found a fire exit. When we opened the fire door, there was a big security guard there, and he said: “You can’t leave.”

We said: “Try to stop us. We’re out of here.”

Another thing I’ll always remember – after I broke out of the Tropicana, I was low crawling through the bushes along the Strip toward my hotel. I got a block away and stood up to cross the street. I pushed the crosswalk button and waited. There were no cars, no people. I’ve just broken all the rules, violated police orders, and now I’m standing there waiting for a blinking light to allow me to cross the street!

I made it back to my hotel room around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. My wife was hysterical because I hadn’t been answering my cell phone. I came in, and she gave me a big hug, and I got in the shower. Our plane was leaving in a few hours, so we laid down, but didn’t sleep.

As we were getting ready to leave, my wife’s phone rang, and it was my number. A guy at the same hotel had found my phone on the field and called the “in case of emergency” number. So, I got my phone back.

It wasn’t easy to deal with the aftermath. It really affected everybody’s life. To this day, I’m particular about where we sit at concerts. My wife isn’t comfortable if she can’t see an exit. I now have a med bag in my car with tourniquets, pressure dressings, airway masks for CPR.

I’ll never forget that feeling of absolute frustration. That lady without an airway – I could’ve put a trach in her very quickly and made a difference. Were they able to keep her airway? Did she live?

The father and son – did the father make it? I have no idea what happened to any of them. Later, I went through and looked at the pictures of all the people who had died, but I couldn’t recognize anybody.

The hardest part was being there with my wife. I’ve been in places where people are shooting at you, in vehicles that are getting bombed. I’ve always believed that when it’s your time, it’s your time. If I get shot, well, okay, that happens. But if she got shot or my friends ... that would be really tough.

A year later, I gave a talk about it at a conference. I thought I had worked through everything. But all of those feelings, all of that helplessness, that anger, everything came roaring back to the surface again. They asked me how I deal with it, and I said: “Well ... poorly.” I’m the guy who sticks it in a box in the back of his brain, tucks it in and buries it with a bunch of other boxes, and hopes it never comes out again. But every once in a while, it does.

There were all kinds of people out on that field, some with medical training, some without, all determined to help, trying to get those injured people where they needed to be. In retrospect, it does make you feel good. Somebody was shooting at us, but people were still willing to stand up and risk their lives to help others.

We still talk with our friends about what happened that night. Over the years, it’s become less and less. But there’s still a text sent out every year on that day: “Today is the anniversary. Glad we’re all alive. Thanks for being our friends.”

Dr. Sebesta is a bariatric surgeon with MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

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

Sunday night. Las Vegas. Jason Aldean had just started playing.

My wife and I were at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival with three other couples; two of them were our close friends. We were sitting in the VIP section, a tented area right next to the stage. We started hearing what I was convinced were fireworks.

I’ve been in the Army for 20 some years. I’ve been deployed and shot at multiple times. But these shots were far away. And you don’t expect people to be shooting at you at a concert.

I was on the edge of the VIP area, so I could see around the corner of the tent. I looked up at the Mandalay Bay and saw the muzzle flash in the hotel window. That’s when I knew.

I screamed: “Somebody’s shooting at us! Everybody get down!”

It took a while for people to realize what was going on. When the first couple volleys sprayed into the crowd, nobody understood. But once enough people had been hit and dropped, everyone knew, and it was just mass exodus.

People screamed and ran everywhere. Some of them tried to jump over the front barrier so they could get underneath the stage. Others were trying to pick up loved ones who’d been shot.

The next 15 minutes are a little foggy. I was helping my wife and the people around us to get down. Funny things come back to you afterward. One of my friends was carrying a 16-ounce beer in his hand. Somebody’s shooting at him and he’s walking around with his beer like he’s afraid to put it down. It was so surreal.

We got everybody underneath the tent, and then we just sat there. There would be shooting and then a pause. You’d think it was over. And then there would be more shooting and another pause. It felt like it never was going to stop.

After a short period of time, somebody came in with an official badge, maybe FBI, who knows. They said: “Okay, everybody up. We’ve got to get you out of here.” So, we all got up and headed across the stage. The gate they were taking us to was in full view of the shooter, so it wasn’t very safe.

As I got up, I looked out at the field. Bodies were scattered everywhere. I’m a trauma surgeon by trade. I couldn’t just leave.

I told my two best friends to take my wife with them. My wife lost her mind at that point. She didn’t want me to run out on the field. But I had to. I saw the injured and they needed help. Another buddy and I jumped over the fence and started taking care of people.

The feeling of being out on the field was one of complete frustration. I was in sandals, shorts, and a t-shirt. We had no stretchers, no medical supplies, no nothing. I didn’t have a belt to use as a tourniquet. I didn’t even have a bandage.

Worse: We were seeing high-velocity gunshot wounds that I’ve seen for 20 years in the Army. I know how to take care of them. I know how to fix them. But there wasn’t a single thing I could do.

We had to get people off the field, so we started gathering up as many as we could. We didn’t know if we were going to get shot at again, so we were trying to hide behind things as we ran. Our main objective was just to get people to a place of safety.

A lot of it is a blur. But a few patients stick out in my mind.

A father and son. The father had been shot through the abdomen, exited out through his back. He was in severe pain and couldn’t walk.

A young girl shot in the arm. Her parents carrying her.

A group of people doing CPR on a young lady. She had a gunshot wound to the head or neck. She was obviously dead. But they were still doing chest compressions in the middle of the field. I had to say to them: “She’s dead. You can’t save her. You need to get off the field.” But they wouldn’t stop. We picked her up and took her out while they continued to do CPR.

Later, I realized I knew that woman. She was part of a group of friends that we would see at the festival. I hadn’t recognized her. I also didn’t know that my friend Marco was there. A month or 2 later, we figured out that he was one of the people doing CPR. And I was the guy who came up and said his friend was dead.

Some people were so badly injured we couldn’t lift them. We started tearing apart the fencing used to separate the crowd and slid sections of the barricades under the wounded to carry them. We also carried off a bunch of people who were dead.

We were moving patients to a covered bar area where we thought they would be safer. What we didn’t know was there was an ambulance rally point at the very far end of the field. Unfortunately, we had no idea it was there.

I saw a lot of other first responders out there, people from the fire department, corpsmen from the Navy, medics. I ran into an anesthesia provider and a series of nurses.

When we got everybody off the field, we started moving them into vehicles. People were bringing their trucks up. One guy even stole a truck so he could drive people to the ED. There wasn’t a lot of triage. We were just stacking whoever we could into the backs of these pickups.

I tried to help a nurse taking care of a lady who had been shot in the neck. She was sitting sort of half upright with the patient lying in her arms. When I reached to help her, she said: “You can’t move her.”

“We need to get her to the hospital,” I replied.

“This is the only position that this lady has an airway,” she said. “You’re going to have to move both of us together. If I move at all, she loses her airway.”

So, a group of us managed to slide something underneath and lift them into the back of a truck.

Loading the wounded went on for a while. And then, just like that, everybody was gone.

I walked back out onto this field which not too long ago held 30,000 people. It was as if aliens had just suddenly beamed everyone out.

There was stuff on the ground everywhere – blankets, clothing, single boots, wallets, purses. I walked past a food stand with food still cooking on the grill. There was a beer tap still running. It was the weirdest feeling I’d ever had in my life.

After that, things got a little crazy again. There had been a report of a second shooter, and no one knew if it was real or not. The police started herding a group of us across the street to the Tropicana. We were still trying to take cover as we walked there. We went past a big lion statue in front of one of the casinos. I have a picture from two years earlier of me sitting on the back of that lion. I remember thinking: Now I’m hunkered down behind the same lion hiding from a shooter. Times change.

They brought about 50 of us into a food court, which was closed. They wouldn’t tell us what was going on. And they wouldn’t let us leave. This went on for hours. Meanwhile, I had dropped my cell phone on the field, so my wife couldn’t get hold of me, and later she told me she assumed I’d been shot. I was just hoping that she was safe.

People were huddled together, crying, holding each other. Most were wearing Western concert–going stuff, which for a lot of them wasn’t very much clothing. The hotel eventually brought some blankets.

I was covered in blood. My shirt, shorts, and sandals were soaked. It was running down my legs. I couldn’t find anything to eat or drink. At one point, I sat down at a slot machine, put a hundred dollars in, and started playing slots. I didn’t know what else to do. It didn’t take me very long to lose it all.

Finally, I started looking for a way to get out. I checked all the exits, but there were security and police there. Then I ran into a guy who said he had found a fire exit. When we opened the fire door, there was a big security guard there, and he said: “You can’t leave.”

We said: “Try to stop us. We’re out of here.”

Another thing I’ll always remember – after I broke out of the Tropicana, I was low crawling through the bushes along the Strip toward my hotel. I got a block away and stood up to cross the street. I pushed the crosswalk button and waited. There were no cars, no people. I’ve just broken all the rules, violated police orders, and now I’m standing there waiting for a blinking light to allow me to cross the street!

I made it back to my hotel room around 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning. My wife was hysterical because I hadn’t been answering my cell phone. I came in, and she gave me a big hug, and I got in the shower. Our plane was leaving in a few hours, so we laid down, but didn’t sleep.

As we were getting ready to leave, my wife’s phone rang, and it was my number. A guy at the same hotel had found my phone on the field and called the “in case of emergency” number. So, I got my phone back.

It wasn’t easy to deal with the aftermath. It really affected everybody’s life. To this day, I’m particular about where we sit at concerts. My wife isn’t comfortable if she can’t see an exit. I now have a med bag in my car with tourniquets, pressure dressings, airway masks for CPR.

I’ll never forget that feeling of absolute frustration. That lady without an airway – I could’ve put a trach in her very quickly and made a difference. Were they able to keep her airway? Did she live?

The father and son – did the father make it? I have no idea what happened to any of them. Later, I went through and looked at the pictures of all the people who had died, but I couldn’t recognize anybody.

The hardest part was being there with my wife. I’ve been in places where people are shooting at you, in vehicles that are getting bombed. I’ve always believed that when it’s your time, it’s your time. If I get shot, well, okay, that happens. But if she got shot or my friends ... that would be really tough.

A year later, I gave a talk about it at a conference. I thought I had worked through everything. But all of those feelings, all of that helplessness, that anger, everything came roaring back to the surface again. They asked me how I deal with it, and I said: “Well ... poorly.” I’m the guy who sticks it in a box in the back of his brain, tucks it in and buries it with a bunch of other boxes, and hopes it never comes out again. But every once in a while, it does.

There were all kinds of people out on that field, some with medical training, some without, all determined to help, trying to get those injured people where they needed to be. In retrospect, it does make you feel good. Somebody was shooting at us, but people were still willing to stand up and risk their lives to help others.

We still talk with our friends about what happened that night. Over the years, it’s become less and less. But there’s still a text sent out every year on that day: “Today is the anniversary. Glad we’re all alive. Thanks for being our friends.”

Dr. Sebesta is a bariatric surgeon with MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

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

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

Nearly 90,000 patients in the United States are waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, yet only about 25,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. Thousands die each year while they wait. Others are not suitable transplant candidates.

Half a million people are on dialysis, the only transplant alternative for those with kidney failure. This greatly impacts their work, relationships, and quality of life.

Researchers from The Kidney Project hope to solve this public health crisis with a futuristic approach: an implantable bioartificial kidney. That hope is slowly approaching reality. Early prototypes have been tested successfully in preclinical research and clinical trials could lie ahead.

This news organization spoke with two researchers who came up with the idea: nephrologist William Dr. Fissell, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and Shuvo Dr. Roy, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of California, San Francisco. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Could you summarize the clinical problem with chronic kidney disease?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis treatment, although lifesaving, is incomplete. Healthy kidneys do a variety of things that dialysis cannot provide. Transplant is absolutely the best remedy, but donor organs are vanishingly scarce. Our goal has been to develop a mass-produced, universal donor kidney to render the issue of scarcity – scarcity of time, scarcity of resources, scarcity of money, scarcity of donor organs – irrelevant.

Do you envision your implantable, bioartificial kidney as a bridge to transplantation? Or can it be even more, like a bionic organ, as good as a natural organ and thus better than a transplant?

Dr. Roy: We see it initially as a bridge to transplantation or as a better option than dialysis for those who will never get a transplant. We’re not trying to create the “Six Million Dollar Man.” The goal is to keep patients off dialysis – to deliver some, but probably not all, of the benefits of a kidney transplant in a mass-produced device that anybody can receive.

Dr. Fissell: The technology is aimed at people in stage 5 renal disease, the final stage, when kidneys are failing, and dialysis is the only option to maintain life. We want to make dialysis a thing of the past, put dialysis machines in museums like the iron lung, which was so vital to keeping people alive several decades ago but is mostly obsolete today.

How did you two come up with this idea? How did you get started working together?

Dr. Roy: I had just begun my career as a research biomedical engineer when I met Dr. William Fissell, who was then contemplating a career in nephrology. He opened my eyes to the problems faced by patients affected by kidney failure. Through our discussions, we quickly realized that while we could improve dialysis machines, patients needed and deserved something better – a treatment that improves their health while also allowing them to keep a job, travel readily, and consume food and drink without restrictions. Basically, something that works more like a kidney transplant.

How does the artificial kidney differ from dialysis?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis is an intermittent stop-and-start treatment. The artificial kidney is continuous, around-the-clock treatment. There are a couple of advantages to that. The first is that you can maintain your body’s fluid balance. In dialysis, you get rid of 2-3 days’ worth of fluid in a couple of hours, and that’s very stressful to the heart and maybe to the brain as well. Second advantage is that patients will be able to eat a normal diet. Some waste products that are byproducts of our nutritional intake are slow to leave the body. So in dialysis, we restrict the diet severely and add medicines to soak up extra phosphorus. With a continuous treatment, you can balance excretion and intake.

The other aspect is that dialysis requires an immense amount of disposables. Hundreds of liters of water per patient per treatment, hundreds of thousands of dialysis cartridges and IV bags every year. The artificial kidney doesn’t need a water supply, disposable sorbent, or cartridges.
 

How does the artificial kidney work?

Dr. Fissell: Just like a healthy kidney. We have a unit that filters the blood so that red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, antibodies, albumin – all the good stuff that your body worked hard to synthesize – stays in the blood, but a watery soup of toxins and waste is separated out. In a second unit, called the bioreactor, kidney cells concentrate those wastes and toxins into urine.

Dr. Roy: We used a technology called silicon micro-machining to invent an entirely new membrane that mimics a healthy kidney’s filters. It filters the blood just using the patient’s heart as a pump. No electric motors, no batteries, no wires. This lets us have something that’s completely implanted.

We also developed a cell culture of kidney cells that function in an artificial kidney. Normally, cells in a dish don’t fully adopt the features of a cell in the body. We looked at the literature around 3-D printing of organs. We learned that, in addition to fluid flow, stiff scaffolds, like cell culture dishes, trigger specific signals that keep the cells from functioning. We overcame that by looking at the physical microenvironment of the cells –  not the hormones and proteins, but instead the fundamentals of the laboratory environment. For example, most organs are soft, yet plastic lab dishes are hard. By using tools that replicated the softness and fluid flow of a healthy kidney, remarkably, these cells functioned better than on a plastic dish.
 

Would patients need immunosuppressive or anticoagulation medication?

Dr. Fissell: They wouldn’t need either. The structure and chemistry of the device prevents blood from clotting. And the membranes in the device are a physical barrier between the host immune system and the donor cells, so the body won’t reject the device.

What is the state of the technology now?

Dr. Fissell: We have shown the function of the filters and the function of the cells, both separately and together, in preclinical in vivo testing. What we now need to do is construct clinical-grade devices and complete sterility and biocompatibility testing to initiate a human trial. That’s going to take between $12 million and $15 million in device manufacturing.

So it’s more a matter of money than time until the first clinical trials?

Dr. Roy: Yes, exactly. We don’t like to say that a clinical trial will start by such-and-such year. From the very start of the project, we have been resource limited.

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

Nearly 90,000 patients in the United States are waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, yet only about 25,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. Thousands die each year while they wait. Others are not suitable transplant candidates.

Half a million people are on dialysis, the only transplant alternative for those with kidney failure. This greatly impacts their work, relationships, and quality of life.

Researchers from The Kidney Project hope to solve this public health crisis with a futuristic approach: an implantable bioartificial kidney. That hope is slowly approaching reality. Early prototypes have been tested successfully in preclinical research and clinical trials could lie ahead.

This news organization spoke with two researchers who came up with the idea: nephrologist William Dr. Fissell, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and Shuvo Dr. Roy, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of California, San Francisco. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Could you summarize the clinical problem with chronic kidney disease?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis treatment, although lifesaving, is incomplete. Healthy kidneys do a variety of things that dialysis cannot provide. Transplant is absolutely the best remedy, but donor organs are vanishingly scarce. Our goal has been to develop a mass-produced, universal donor kidney to render the issue of scarcity – scarcity of time, scarcity of resources, scarcity of money, scarcity of donor organs – irrelevant.

Do you envision your implantable, bioartificial kidney as a bridge to transplantation? Or can it be even more, like a bionic organ, as good as a natural organ and thus better than a transplant?

Dr. Roy: We see it initially as a bridge to transplantation or as a better option than dialysis for those who will never get a transplant. We’re not trying to create the “Six Million Dollar Man.” The goal is to keep patients off dialysis – to deliver some, but probably not all, of the benefits of a kidney transplant in a mass-produced device that anybody can receive.

Dr. Fissell: The technology is aimed at people in stage 5 renal disease, the final stage, when kidneys are failing, and dialysis is the only option to maintain life. We want to make dialysis a thing of the past, put dialysis machines in museums like the iron lung, which was so vital to keeping people alive several decades ago but is mostly obsolete today.

How did you two come up with this idea? How did you get started working together?

Dr. Roy: I had just begun my career as a research biomedical engineer when I met Dr. William Fissell, who was then contemplating a career in nephrology. He opened my eyes to the problems faced by patients affected by kidney failure. Through our discussions, we quickly realized that while we could improve dialysis machines, patients needed and deserved something better – a treatment that improves their health while also allowing them to keep a job, travel readily, and consume food and drink without restrictions. Basically, something that works more like a kidney transplant.

How does the artificial kidney differ from dialysis?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis is an intermittent stop-and-start treatment. The artificial kidney is continuous, around-the-clock treatment. There are a couple of advantages to that. The first is that you can maintain your body’s fluid balance. In dialysis, you get rid of 2-3 days’ worth of fluid in a couple of hours, and that’s very stressful to the heart and maybe to the brain as well. Second advantage is that patients will be able to eat a normal diet. Some waste products that are byproducts of our nutritional intake are slow to leave the body. So in dialysis, we restrict the diet severely and add medicines to soak up extra phosphorus. With a continuous treatment, you can balance excretion and intake.

The other aspect is that dialysis requires an immense amount of disposables. Hundreds of liters of water per patient per treatment, hundreds of thousands of dialysis cartridges and IV bags every year. The artificial kidney doesn’t need a water supply, disposable sorbent, or cartridges.
 

How does the artificial kidney work?

Dr. Fissell: Just like a healthy kidney. We have a unit that filters the blood so that red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, antibodies, albumin – all the good stuff that your body worked hard to synthesize – stays in the blood, but a watery soup of toxins and waste is separated out. In a second unit, called the bioreactor, kidney cells concentrate those wastes and toxins into urine.

Dr. Roy: We used a technology called silicon micro-machining to invent an entirely new membrane that mimics a healthy kidney’s filters. It filters the blood just using the patient’s heart as a pump. No electric motors, no batteries, no wires. This lets us have something that’s completely implanted.

We also developed a cell culture of kidney cells that function in an artificial kidney. Normally, cells in a dish don’t fully adopt the features of a cell in the body. We looked at the literature around 3-D printing of organs. We learned that, in addition to fluid flow, stiff scaffolds, like cell culture dishes, trigger specific signals that keep the cells from functioning. We overcame that by looking at the physical microenvironment of the cells –  not the hormones and proteins, but instead the fundamentals of the laboratory environment. For example, most organs are soft, yet plastic lab dishes are hard. By using tools that replicated the softness and fluid flow of a healthy kidney, remarkably, these cells functioned better than on a plastic dish.
 

Would patients need immunosuppressive or anticoagulation medication?

Dr. Fissell: They wouldn’t need either. The structure and chemistry of the device prevents blood from clotting. And the membranes in the device are a physical barrier between the host immune system and the donor cells, so the body won’t reject the device.

What is the state of the technology now?

Dr. Fissell: We have shown the function of the filters and the function of the cells, both separately and together, in preclinical in vivo testing. What we now need to do is construct clinical-grade devices and complete sterility and biocompatibility testing to initiate a human trial. That’s going to take between $12 million and $15 million in device manufacturing.

So it’s more a matter of money than time until the first clinical trials?

Dr. Roy: Yes, exactly. We don’t like to say that a clinical trial will start by such-and-such year. From the very start of the project, we have been resource limited.

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

Nearly 90,000 patients in the United States are waiting for a lifesaving kidney transplant, yet only about 25,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. Thousands die each year while they wait. Others are not suitable transplant candidates.

Half a million people are on dialysis, the only transplant alternative for those with kidney failure. This greatly impacts their work, relationships, and quality of life.

Researchers from The Kidney Project hope to solve this public health crisis with a futuristic approach: an implantable bioartificial kidney. That hope is slowly approaching reality. Early prototypes have been tested successfully in preclinical research and clinical trials could lie ahead.

This news organization spoke with two researchers who came up with the idea: nephrologist William Dr. Fissell, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and Shuvo Dr. Roy, PhD, a biomedical engineer at the University of California, San Francisco. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
 

Question: Could you summarize the clinical problem with chronic kidney disease?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis treatment, although lifesaving, is incomplete. Healthy kidneys do a variety of things that dialysis cannot provide. Transplant is absolutely the best remedy, but donor organs are vanishingly scarce. Our goal has been to develop a mass-produced, universal donor kidney to render the issue of scarcity – scarcity of time, scarcity of resources, scarcity of money, scarcity of donor organs – irrelevant.

Do you envision your implantable, bioartificial kidney as a bridge to transplantation? Or can it be even more, like a bionic organ, as good as a natural organ and thus better than a transplant?

Dr. Roy: We see it initially as a bridge to transplantation or as a better option than dialysis for those who will never get a transplant. We’re not trying to create the “Six Million Dollar Man.” The goal is to keep patients off dialysis – to deliver some, but probably not all, of the benefits of a kidney transplant in a mass-produced device that anybody can receive.

Dr. Fissell: The technology is aimed at people in stage 5 renal disease, the final stage, when kidneys are failing, and dialysis is the only option to maintain life. We want to make dialysis a thing of the past, put dialysis machines in museums like the iron lung, which was so vital to keeping people alive several decades ago but is mostly obsolete today.

How did you two come up with this idea? How did you get started working together?

Dr. Roy: I had just begun my career as a research biomedical engineer when I met Dr. William Fissell, who was then contemplating a career in nephrology. He opened my eyes to the problems faced by patients affected by kidney failure. Through our discussions, we quickly realized that while we could improve dialysis machines, patients needed and deserved something better – a treatment that improves their health while also allowing them to keep a job, travel readily, and consume food and drink without restrictions. Basically, something that works more like a kidney transplant.

How does the artificial kidney differ from dialysis?

Dr. Fissell: Dialysis is an intermittent stop-and-start treatment. The artificial kidney is continuous, around-the-clock treatment. There are a couple of advantages to that. The first is that you can maintain your body’s fluid balance. In dialysis, you get rid of 2-3 days’ worth of fluid in a couple of hours, and that’s very stressful to the heart and maybe to the brain as well. Second advantage is that patients will be able to eat a normal diet. Some waste products that are byproducts of our nutritional intake are slow to leave the body. So in dialysis, we restrict the diet severely and add medicines to soak up extra phosphorus. With a continuous treatment, you can balance excretion and intake.

The other aspect is that dialysis requires an immense amount of disposables. Hundreds of liters of water per patient per treatment, hundreds of thousands of dialysis cartridges and IV bags every year. The artificial kidney doesn’t need a water supply, disposable sorbent, or cartridges.
 

How does the artificial kidney work?

Dr. Fissell: Just like a healthy kidney. We have a unit that filters the blood so that red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, antibodies, albumin – all the good stuff that your body worked hard to synthesize – stays in the blood, but a watery soup of toxins and waste is separated out. In a second unit, called the bioreactor, kidney cells concentrate those wastes and toxins into urine.

Dr. Roy: We used a technology called silicon micro-machining to invent an entirely new membrane that mimics a healthy kidney’s filters. It filters the blood just using the patient’s heart as a pump. No electric motors, no batteries, no wires. This lets us have something that’s completely implanted.

We also developed a cell culture of kidney cells that function in an artificial kidney. Normally, cells in a dish don’t fully adopt the features of a cell in the body. We looked at the literature around 3-D printing of organs. We learned that, in addition to fluid flow, stiff scaffolds, like cell culture dishes, trigger specific signals that keep the cells from functioning. We overcame that by looking at the physical microenvironment of the cells –  not the hormones and proteins, but instead the fundamentals of the laboratory environment. For example, most organs are soft, yet plastic lab dishes are hard. By using tools that replicated the softness and fluid flow of a healthy kidney, remarkably, these cells functioned better than on a plastic dish.
 

Would patients need immunosuppressive or anticoagulation medication?

Dr. Fissell: They wouldn’t need either. The structure and chemistry of the device prevents blood from clotting. And the membranes in the device are a physical barrier between the host immune system and the donor cells, so the body won’t reject the device.

What is the state of the technology now?

Dr. Fissell: We have shown the function of the filters and the function of the cells, both separately and together, in preclinical in vivo testing. What we now need to do is construct clinical-grade devices and complete sterility and biocompatibility testing to initiate a human trial. That’s going to take between $12 million and $15 million in device manufacturing.

So it’s more a matter of money than time until the first clinical trials?

Dr. Roy: Yes, exactly. We don’t like to say that a clinical trial will start by such-and-such year. From the very start of the project, we have been resource limited.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even at an advanced age, superagers have the memory of someone 20 or 30 years their junior. But why is that? A new study shows that, in superagers, age-related atrophy of the gray matter, especially in the areas responsible for memory, develops much more slowly than in normal older adults. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of physical and mental fitness for a healthy aging process.

“One of the most important unanswered questions with regard to superagers is: ‘Are they resistant to age-related memory loss, or do they have coping mechanisms that allow them to better offset this memory loss?’ ” wrote Marta Garo-Pascual, a PhD candidate at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, and colleagues in the Lancet Healthy Longevity. “Our results indicate that superagers are resistant to these processes.”
 

Six years’ monitoring

From a cohort of older adults who had participated in a study aiming to identify early indicators of Alzheimer’s disease, the research group chose 64 superagers and 55 normal senior citizens. The latter served as the control group. While the superagers performed just as well in a memory test as people 30 years their junior, the control group’s performance was in line with their age and level of education.

All study participants were over age 79 years. Both the group of superagers and the control group included more females than males. On average, they were monitored for 6 years. During this period, a checkup was scheduled annually with an MRI examination, clinical tests, blood tests, and documentation of lifestyle factors.

For Alessandro Cellerino, PhD, of the Leibniz Institute on Aging–Fritz Lipmann Institute in Jena, Germany, this is the most crucial aspect of the study. “Even before this study, we knew that superagers demonstrated less atrophy in certain areas of the brain, but this was always only ever based on a single measurement.”
 

Memory centers protected

The MRI examinations confirmed that in superagers, gray matter atrophy in the regions responsible for memory (such as the medial temporal lobe and cholinergic forebrain), as well in regions important for movement (such as the motor thalamus), was less pronounced. In addition, the volume of gray matter in these regions, especially in the medial temporal lobe, decreased much more slowly in the superagers than in the control subjects over the study period.

Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates used a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between superagers and normal older adults. From the 89 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors entered into the algorithm, two were the most important for the classification: the ability to move and mental health.
 

Mobility and mental health

Clinical tests such as the Timed Up-and-Go Test and the Finger Tapping Test revealed that superagers can be distinguished from the normally aging control subjects with regard to their mobility and fine motor skills. Their physical condition was better, although they, by their own admission, did not move any more than the control subjects in day-to-day life. According to Dr. Cellerino, this finding confirms that physical activity is paramount for cognitive function. “These people were over 80 years old – the fact that there was not much difference between their levels of activity is not surprising. Much more relevant is the question of how you get there – i.e., how active you are at the ages of 40, 50 or even 60 years old.”

Remaining active is important

As a matter of fact, the superagers indicated that generally they had been more active than the control subjects during their middle years. “Attempting to stay physically fit is essential; even if it just means going for a walk or taking the stairs,” said Dr. Cellerino.

On average, the superagers also fared much better in tests on physical health than the control subjects. They suffered significantly less from depression or anxiety disorders. “Earlier studies suggest that depression and anxiety disorders may influence performance in memory tests across all ages and that they are risk factors for developing dementia,” said Dr. Cellerino.

To avoid mental health issues in later life, gerontologist Dr. Cellerino recommended remaining socially engaged and involved. “Depression and anxiety are commonly also a consequence of social isolation,” he said.
 

Potential genetic differences

Blood sample analyses demonstrated that the superagers exhibited lower concentrations of biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases than the control group did. In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in the prevalence of the apo e4 allele, one of the most important genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates assume that genetics also play a role. They found that, despite 89 variables employed, the algorithm used could only distinguish superagers from normal older adults 66% of the time. This suggests that additional factors must be in play, such as genetic differences.

Body and mind

Since this is an observational study, whether the determined factors have a direct effect on superaging cannot be ascertained, the authors wrote. However, the results are consistent with earlier findings.

“Regarding the management of old age, we actually haven’t learned anything more than what we already knew. But it does confirm that physical and mental function are closely entwined and that we must maintain both to age healthily,” Dr. Cellerino concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Even at an advanced age, superagers have the memory of someone 20 or 30 years their junior. But why is that? A new study shows that, in superagers, age-related atrophy of the gray matter, especially in the areas responsible for memory, develops much more slowly than in normal older adults. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of physical and mental fitness for a healthy aging process.

“One of the most important unanswered questions with regard to superagers is: ‘Are they resistant to age-related memory loss, or do they have coping mechanisms that allow them to better offset this memory loss?’ ” wrote Marta Garo-Pascual, a PhD candidate at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, and colleagues in the Lancet Healthy Longevity. “Our results indicate that superagers are resistant to these processes.”
 

Six years’ monitoring

From a cohort of older adults who had participated in a study aiming to identify early indicators of Alzheimer’s disease, the research group chose 64 superagers and 55 normal senior citizens. The latter served as the control group. While the superagers performed just as well in a memory test as people 30 years their junior, the control group’s performance was in line with their age and level of education.

All study participants were over age 79 years. Both the group of superagers and the control group included more females than males. On average, they were monitored for 6 years. During this period, a checkup was scheduled annually with an MRI examination, clinical tests, blood tests, and documentation of lifestyle factors.

For Alessandro Cellerino, PhD, of the Leibniz Institute on Aging–Fritz Lipmann Institute in Jena, Germany, this is the most crucial aspect of the study. “Even before this study, we knew that superagers demonstrated less atrophy in certain areas of the brain, but this was always only ever based on a single measurement.”
 

Memory centers protected

The MRI examinations confirmed that in superagers, gray matter atrophy in the regions responsible for memory (such as the medial temporal lobe and cholinergic forebrain), as well in regions important for movement (such as the motor thalamus), was less pronounced. In addition, the volume of gray matter in these regions, especially in the medial temporal lobe, decreased much more slowly in the superagers than in the control subjects over the study period.

Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates used a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between superagers and normal older adults. From the 89 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors entered into the algorithm, two were the most important for the classification: the ability to move and mental health.
 

Mobility and mental health

Clinical tests such as the Timed Up-and-Go Test and the Finger Tapping Test revealed that superagers can be distinguished from the normally aging control subjects with regard to their mobility and fine motor skills. Their physical condition was better, although they, by their own admission, did not move any more than the control subjects in day-to-day life. According to Dr. Cellerino, this finding confirms that physical activity is paramount for cognitive function. “These people were over 80 years old – the fact that there was not much difference between their levels of activity is not surprising. Much more relevant is the question of how you get there – i.e., how active you are at the ages of 40, 50 or even 60 years old.”

Remaining active is important

As a matter of fact, the superagers indicated that generally they had been more active than the control subjects during their middle years. “Attempting to stay physically fit is essential; even if it just means going for a walk or taking the stairs,” said Dr. Cellerino.

On average, the superagers also fared much better in tests on physical health than the control subjects. They suffered significantly less from depression or anxiety disorders. “Earlier studies suggest that depression and anxiety disorders may influence performance in memory tests across all ages and that they are risk factors for developing dementia,” said Dr. Cellerino.

To avoid mental health issues in later life, gerontologist Dr. Cellerino recommended remaining socially engaged and involved. “Depression and anxiety are commonly also a consequence of social isolation,” he said.
 

Potential genetic differences

Blood sample analyses demonstrated that the superagers exhibited lower concentrations of biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases than the control group did. In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in the prevalence of the apo e4 allele, one of the most important genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates assume that genetics also play a role. They found that, despite 89 variables employed, the algorithm used could only distinguish superagers from normal older adults 66% of the time. This suggests that additional factors must be in play, such as genetic differences.

Body and mind

Since this is an observational study, whether the determined factors have a direct effect on superaging cannot be ascertained, the authors wrote. However, the results are consistent with earlier findings.

“Regarding the management of old age, we actually haven’t learned anything more than what we already knew. But it does confirm that physical and mental function are closely entwined and that we must maintain both to age healthily,” Dr. Cellerino concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Even at an advanced age, superagers have the memory of someone 20 or 30 years their junior. But why is that? A new study shows that, in superagers, age-related atrophy of the gray matter, especially in the areas responsible for memory, develops much more slowly than in normal older adults. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of physical and mental fitness for a healthy aging process.

“One of the most important unanswered questions with regard to superagers is: ‘Are they resistant to age-related memory loss, or do they have coping mechanisms that allow them to better offset this memory loss?’ ” wrote Marta Garo-Pascual, a PhD candidate at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, and colleagues in the Lancet Healthy Longevity. “Our results indicate that superagers are resistant to these processes.”
 

Six years’ monitoring

From a cohort of older adults who had participated in a study aiming to identify early indicators of Alzheimer’s disease, the research group chose 64 superagers and 55 normal senior citizens. The latter served as the control group. While the superagers performed just as well in a memory test as people 30 years their junior, the control group’s performance was in line with their age and level of education.

All study participants were over age 79 years. Both the group of superagers and the control group included more females than males. On average, they were monitored for 6 years. During this period, a checkup was scheduled annually with an MRI examination, clinical tests, blood tests, and documentation of lifestyle factors.

For Alessandro Cellerino, PhD, of the Leibniz Institute on Aging–Fritz Lipmann Institute in Jena, Germany, this is the most crucial aspect of the study. “Even before this study, we knew that superagers demonstrated less atrophy in certain areas of the brain, but this was always only ever based on a single measurement.”
 

Memory centers protected

The MRI examinations confirmed that in superagers, gray matter atrophy in the regions responsible for memory (such as the medial temporal lobe and cholinergic forebrain), as well in regions important for movement (such as the motor thalamus), was less pronounced. In addition, the volume of gray matter in these regions, especially in the medial temporal lobe, decreased much more slowly in the superagers than in the control subjects over the study period.

Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates used a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between superagers and normal older adults. From the 89 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors entered into the algorithm, two were the most important for the classification: the ability to move and mental health.
 

Mobility and mental health

Clinical tests such as the Timed Up-and-Go Test and the Finger Tapping Test revealed that superagers can be distinguished from the normally aging control subjects with regard to their mobility and fine motor skills. Their physical condition was better, although they, by their own admission, did not move any more than the control subjects in day-to-day life. According to Dr. Cellerino, this finding confirms that physical activity is paramount for cognitive function. “These people were over 80 years old – the fact that there was not much difference between their levels of activity is not surprising. Much more relevant is the question of how you get there – i.e., how active you are at the ages of 40, 50 or even 60 years old.”

Remaining active is important

As a matter of fact, the superagers indicated that generally they had been more active than the control subjects during their middle years. “Attempting to stay physically fit is essential; even if it just means going for a walk or taking the stairs,” said Dr. Cellerino.

On average, the superagers also fared much better in tests on physical health than the control subjects. They suffered significantly less from depression or anxiety disorders. “Earlier studies suggest that depression and anxiety disorders may influence performance in memory tests across all ages and that they are risk factors for developing dementia,” said Dr. Cellerino.

To avoid mental health issues in later life, gerontologist Dr. Cellerino recommended remaining socially engaged and involved. “Depression and anxiety are commonly also a consequence of social isolation,” he said.
 

Potential genetic differences

Blood sample analyses demonstrated that the superagers exhibited lower concentrations of biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases than the control group did. In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in the prevalence of the apo e4 allele, one of the most important genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates assume that genetics also play a role. They found that, despite 89 variables employed, the algorithm used could only distinguish superagers from normal older adults 66% of the time. This suggests that additional factors must be in play, such as genetic differences.

Body and mind

Since this is an observational study, whether the determined factors have a direct effect on superaging cannot be ascertained, the authors wrote. However, the results are consistent with earlier findings.

“Regarding the management of old age, we actually haven’t learned anything more than what we already knew. But it does confirm that physical and mental function are closely entwined and that we must maintain both to age healthily,” Dr. Cellerino concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.