Federal Practitioner

CHICAGO – At this year’s AGA Postgraduate Course in May at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW), we reviewed the latest updates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Although it had been thought that incidence rates of IBD were plateauing in high-incidence areas, a Danish study found a steady increase in incidence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).¹ The highest increase in rates occurred in children and young adults, which will have repercussions as people get older and contribute to higher compounding prevalence. We need to get better at dealing with other health conditions as patients get older. A very large prospective Spanish study found that 42% of IBD patients scanned consecutively had MAFLD (metabolic-associated fatty liver disease) – even if they didn’t have high BMI and type 2 diabetes, suggesting that systemic inflammation in IBD contributes to the development of metabolic liver disease.²

University of Miami

The AGA has recently published guidelines for using biomarkers in the management of UC. Patients with very low fecal calprotectin (FCP) are unlikely to have active disease whereas FCP over 150 with significant symptoms may warrant empiric changes in treatment.³

Intestinal ultrasound is gaining wider acceptance as a noninvasive way to monitor IBD.⁴ In a UC study, improvement in bowel wall thickness following tofacitinib treatment correlated well with endoscopic activity.⁵

Brigham and Women's Hospital

The majority of the presentation focused on the explosion of Food and Drug Administration–-approved medications for IBD in recent years. S1P receptor agonists, such as ozanimod and etrasimod, may work by trapping specific T-cell subsets in peripheral lymph nodes, preventing migration to intestinal tissues. Ozanimod is approved for UC. Etrasimod showed efficacy in UC with clinical remission rates of about 27% at week 12 and 32% at week 52.^6,7

There has been a lot of excitement about JAK inhibitors for IBD. Upadacitinib has recently been approved for both UC and Crohn’s disease. Response rates of 73% and remission rates of 26% were seen in UC patients who had been largely biologic exposed.⁸ Similar results were seen in a biologic-exposed Crohn’s disease population treated with upadacitinib including in endoscopy.⁹ Upadacitinib was effective in maintaining remission at both 15-mg and 30-mg doses; but the higher dose had a greater effect on endoscopic endpoints.¹⁰

Dr. Loftus

For Crohn’s disease, we now have risankizumab, an anti-p19/IL-23 inhibitor. Risankizumab was efficacious at inducing and maintain remission in the pivotal phase 3 studies, even with 75% of patients being biologic exposed. These studies used combined endpoints of clinical remission as well as endoscopic response.¹¹ Guselkumab (anti-p19/IL-23) is also being studied for Crohn’s disease and early trials has appears to be efficacious.¹²

A head-to-head study of naive CD patients treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab (SEAVUE) showed comparable rates of clinical remission. At 52 weeks, the rates of clinical remission were quite high: >60% and endoscopic remission >30% with either therapy.¹³

We now have phase 3 data showing that a biologic is efficacious in patients with chronic pouchitis. The EARNEST trial demonstrated that vedolizumab has efficacy in treating pouchitis with improved clinical symptoms and endoscopy.¹⁴ Future treatment strategies may involve combinations of biologic therapies. The VEGA study showed that combining an anti-TNF, golimumab, with an anti-IL23, guselkumab, was superior than either alone with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in UC.¹⁵ We will see more studies combining therapies with diverse mechanisms of action.

In summary, there have been many noteworthy advances in treatment and management of IBD in the past year.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Abreu is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Miami. She is president-elect of AGA. Dr. Allegretti is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and director of the fecal microbiota transplant program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Loftus is the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Professor of Gastroenterology, codirector of the advanced IBD fellowship in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Dr. Ungaro is associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Agrawal M et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1547-54.e5.

2. Rodriguez-Duque JC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):406-14.e7.

3. Singh S, et al. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(3):344-72.

4. de Voogd F et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1569-81.

5. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723-36.

6. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1280-91.

7. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet. 2023 Mar 25;401(10381):1000]. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1159-71.

8. Danese S et al. Lancet. 2022 Sep 24;400(10357):996]. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2113-28.

9. Loftus EV Jr et al. N Engl J Med. 2023 May 25;388(21):1966-80.

10. Panes J et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(S10). Abstract S37.

11. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-30

12. Sandborn WJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1650-64.e8.

13. Sands BE, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10342):2200-11.

14. Travis S et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1191-1200.

15. Feagan BG et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):307-20.

CHICAGO – At this year’s AGA Postgraduate Course in May at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW), we reviewed the latest updates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Although it had been thought that incidence rates of IBD were plateauing in high-incidence areas, a Danish study found a steady increase in incidence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).¹ The highest increase in rates occurred in children and young adults, which will have repercussions as people get older and contribute to higher compounding prevalence. We need to get better at dealing with other health conditions as patients get older. A very large prospective Spanish study found that 42% of IBD patients scanned consecutively had MAFLD (metabolic-associated fatty liver disease) – even if they didn’t have high BMI and type 2 diabetes, suggesting that systemic inflammation in IBD contributes to the development of metabolic liver disease.²

University of Miami

The AGA has recently published guidelines for using biomarkers in the management of UC. Patients with very low fecal calprotectin (FCP) are unlikely to have active disease whereas FCP over 150 with significant symptoms may warrant empiric changes in treatment.³

Intestinal ultrasound is gaining wider acceptance as a noninvasive way to monitor IBD.⁴ In a UC study, improvement in bowel wall thickness following tofacitinib treatment correlated well with endoscopic activity.⁵

Brigham and Women's Hospital

The majority of the presentation focused on the explosion of Food and Drug Administration–-approved medications for IBD in recent years. S1P receptor agonists, such as ozanimod and etrasimod, may work by trapping specific T-cell subsets in peripheral lymph nodes, preventing migration to intestinal tissues. Ozanimod is approved for UC. Etrasimod showed efficacy in UC with clinical remission rates of about 27% at week 12 and 32% at week 52.^6,7

There has been a lot of excitement about JAK inhibitors for IBD. Upadacitinib has recently been approved for both UC and Crohn’s disease. Response rates of 73% and remission rates of 26% were seen in UC patients who had been largely biologic exposed.⁸ Similar results were seen in a biologic-exposed Crohn’s disease population treated with upadacitinib including in endoscopy.⁹ Upadacitinib was effective in maintaining remission at both 15-mg and 30-mg doses; but the higher dose had a greater effect on endoscopic endpoints.¹⁰

Dr. Loftus

For Crohn’s disease, we now have risankizumab, an anti-p19/IL-23 inhibitor. Risankizumab was efficacious at inducing and maintain remission in the pivotal phase 3 studies, even with 75% of patients being biologic exposed. These studies used combined endpoints of clinical remission as well as endoscopic response.¹¹ Guselkumab (anti-p19/IL-23) is also being studied for Crohn’s disease and early trials has appears to be efficacious.¹²

A head-to-head study of naive CD patients treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab (SEAVUE) showed comparable rates of clinical remission. At 52 weeks, the rates of clinical remission were quite high: >60% and endoscopic remission >30% with either therapy.¹³

We now have phase 3 data showing that a biologic is efficacious in patients with chronic pouchitis. The EARNEST trial demonstrated that vedolizumab has efficacy in treating pouchitis with improved clinical symptoms and endoscopy.¹⁴ Future treatment strategies may involve combinations of biologic therapies. The VEGA study showed that combining an anti-TNF, golimumab, with an anti-IL23, guselkumab, was superior than either alone with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in UC.¹⁵ We will see more studies combining therapies with diverse mechanisms of action.

In summary, there have been many noteworthy advances in treatment and management of IBD in the past year.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Abreu is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Miami. She is president-elect of AGA. Dr. Allegretti is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and director of the fecal microbiota transplant program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Loftus is the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Professor of Gastroenterology, codirector of the advanced IBD fellowship in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Dr. Ungaro is associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Agrawal M et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1547-54.e5.

2. Rodriguez-Duque JC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):406-14.e7.

3. Singh S, et al. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(3):344-72.

4. de Voogd F et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1569-81.

5. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723-36.

6. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1280-91.

7. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet. 2023 Mar 25;401(10381):1000]. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1159-71.

8. Danese S et al. Lancet. 2022 Sep 24;400(10357):996]. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2113-28.

9. Loftus EV Jr et al. N Engl J Med. 2023 May 25;388(21):1966-80.

10. Panes J et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(S10). Abstract S37.

11. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-30

12. Sandborn WJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1650-64.e8.

13. Sands BE, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10342):2200-11.

14. Travis S et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1191-1200.

15. Feagan BG et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):307-20.

CHICAGO – At this year’s AGA Postgraduate Course in May at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW), we reviewed the latest updates in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Although it had been thought that incidence rates of IBD were plateauing in high-incidence areas, a Danish study found a steady increase in incidence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC).¹ The highest increase in rates occurred in children and young adults, which will have repercussions as people get older and contribute to higher compounding prevalence. We need to get better at dealing with other health conditions as patients get older. A very large prospective Spanish study found that 42% of IBD patients scanned consecutively had MAFLD (metabolic-associated fatty liver disease) – even if they didn’t have high BMI and type 2 diabetes, suggesting that systemic inflammation in IBD contributes to the development of metabolic liver disease.²

University of Miami

The AGA has recently published guidelines for using biomarkers in the management of UC. Patients with very low fecal calprotectin (FCP) are unlikely to have active disease whereas FCP over 150 with significant symptoms may warrant empiric changes in treatment.³

Intestinal ultrasound is gaining wider acceptance as a noninvasive way to monitor IBD.⁴ In a UC study, improvement in bowel wall thickness following tofacitinib treatment correlated well with endoscopic activity.⁵

Brigham and Women's Hospital

The majority of the presentation focused on the explosion of Food and Drug Administration–-approved medications for IBD in recent years. S1P receptor agonists, such as ozanimod and etrasimod, may work by trapping specific T-cell subsets in peripheral lymph nodes, preventing migration to intestinal tissues. Ozanimod is approved for UC. Etrasimod showed efficacy in UC with clinical remission rates of about 27% at week 12 and 32% at week 52.^6,7

There has been a lot of excitement about JAK inhibitors for IBD. Upadacitinib has recently been approved for both UC and Crohn’s disease. Response rates of 73% and remission rates of 26% were seen in UC patients who had been largely biologic exposed.⁸ Similar results were seen in a biologic-exposed Crohn’s disease population treated with upadacitinib including in endoscopy.⁹ Upadacitinib was effective in maintaining remission at both 15-mg and 30-mg doses; but the higher dose had a greater effect on endoscopic endpoints.¹⁰

Dr. Loftus

For Crohn’s disease, we now have risankizumab, an anti-p19/IL-23 inhibitor. Risankizumab was efficacious at inducing and maintain remission in the pivotal phase 3 studies, even with 75% of patients being biologic exposed. These studies used combined endpoints of clinical remission as well as endoscopic response.¹¹ Guselkumab (anti-p19/IL-23) is also being studied for Crohn’s disease and early trials has appears to be efficacious.¹²

A head-to-head study of naive CD patients treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab (SEAVUE) showed comparable rates of clinical remission. At 52 weeks, the rates of clinical remission were quite high: >60% and endoscopic remission >30% with either therapy.¹³

We now have phase 3 data showing that a biologic is efficacious in patients with chronic pouchitis. The EARNEST trial demonstrated that vedolizumab has efficacy in treating pouchitis with improved clinical symptoms and endoscopy.¹⁴ Future treatment strategies may involve combinations of biologic therapies. The VEGA study showed that combining an anti-TNF, golimumab, with an anti-IL23, guselkumab, was superior than either alone with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement in UC.¹⁵ We will see more studies combining therapies with diverse mechanisms of action.

In summary, there have been many noteworthy advances in treatment and management of IBD in the past year.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Dr. Abreu is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and professor of medicine, microbiology, and immunology at the University of Miami. She is president-elect of AGA. Dr. Allegretti is director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center and director of the fecal microbiota transplant program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Loftus is the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family Professor of Gastroenterology, codirector of the advanced IBD fellowship in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Dr. Ungaro is associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

References

1. Agrawal M et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1547-54.e5.

2. Rodriguez-Duque JC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(2):406-14.e7.

3. Singh S, et al. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(3):344-72.

4. de Voogd F et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1569-81.

5. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1723-36.

6. Sandborn WJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(14):1280-91.

7. Sandborn WJ et al. Lancet. 2023 Mar 25;401(10381):1000]. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1159-71.

8. Danese S et al. Lancet. 2022 Sep 24;400(10357):996]. Lancet. 2022;399(10341):2113-28.

9. Loftus EV Jr et al. N Engl J Med. 2023 May 25;388(21):1966-80.

10. Panes J et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(S10). Abstract S37.

11. D’Haens G, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2015-30

12. Sandborn WJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1650-64.e8.

13. Sands BE, et al. Lancet. 2022;399(10342):2200-11.

14. Travis S et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1191-1200.

15. Feagan BG et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;8(4):307-20.

Nearly half of adults with a chronic hepatitis D (HDV) viral infection showed undetectable or greatly reduced viral RNA and normalized alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels with bulevirtide at 48 weeks, shows an ongoing phase 3 study conducted in the United States and four other countries.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Led by Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, of Hannover Medical School in Germany, the study included 150 patients with HDV, with and without compensated cirrhosis (mean age, 42 years; 57% male; 83% White). They were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg or 10 mg of bulevirtide subcutaneously daily for 144 weeks or, as a control group, receive no treatment for 48 weeks, followed by 10 mg of bulevirtide daily for 96 weeks. All patients were followed for 96 weeks after treatment ends.

For the primary endpoint, the combined viral and ALT response at week 48 was similar in the 2-mg (45%) and 10-mg (48%) groups, compared with 2% in the control group (one patient). Twelve percent of patients in the 2-mg group and 20% of patients in the 10-mg group had a clinical benefit, compared with none of the patients in the control group.

Among those with a combined response, normalization of the ALT level occurred in most patients by week 24, while the HDV RNA level continued to decline between week 24 and week 48, the authors wrote.

“This surrogate end point is considered to be a reasonably likely predictor of improved clinical outcomes in patients with HDV; however, longer-term data are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of bulevirtide,” the investigators wrote.

The results offer a glimmer of hope, Marc Ghany, MD, MHSc, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The goal of HDV therapy is to improve patient survival by preventing progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer,” he wrote.

In safety results, headache, pruritus, fatigue, and eosinophilia were more common in the bulevirtide groups than in the control group. All adverse events were mild to moderate.

HDV infects about 5% of people with chronic HBV and relies on HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) for transmission and infectivity. Bulevirtide is derived from a region of the large envelope protein of HBsAg and irreversibly binds to the hepatocyte entry receptor for both HDV and HBV.

Bulevirtide has received conditional approval in the European Union. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve bulevirtide over concerns about production and delivery of the drug. There are no approved treatments for HDV in the United States.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Wedemeyer disclosed research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences. He and other coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies.

Nearly half of adults with a chronic hepatitis D (HDV) viral infection showed undetectable or greatly reduced viral RNA and normalized alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels with bulevirtide at 48 weeks, shows an ongoing phase 3 study conducted in the United States and four other countries.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Led by Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, of Hannover Medical School in Germany, the study included 150 patients with HDV, with and without compensated cirrhosis (mean age, 42 years; 57% male; 83% White). They were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg or 10 mg of bulevirtide subcutaneously daily for 144 weeks or, as a control group, receive no treatment for 48 weeks, followed by 10 mg of bulevirtide daily for 96 weeks. All patients were followed for 96 weeks after treatment ends.

For the primary endpoint, the combined viral and ALT response at week 48 was similar in the 2-mg (45%) and 10-mg (48%) groups, compared with 2% in the control group (one patient). Twelve percent of patients in the 2-mg group and 20% of patients in the 10-mg group had a clinical benefit, compared with none of the patients in the control group.

Among those with a combined response, normalization of the ALT level occurred in most patients by week 24, while the HDV RNA level continued to decline between week 24 and week 48, the authors wrote.

“This surrogate end point is considered to be a reasonably likely predictor of improved clinical outcomes in patients with HDV; however, longer-term data are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of bulevirtide,” the investigators wrote.

The results offer a glimmer of hope, Marc Ghany, MD, MHSc, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The goal of HDV therapy is to improve patient survival by preventing progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer,” he wrote.

In safety results, headache, pruritus, fatigue, and eosinophilia were more common in the bulevirtide groups than in the control group. All adverse events were mild to moderate.

HDV infects about 5% of people with chronic HBV and relies on HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) for transmission and infectivity. Bulevirtide is derived from a region of the large envelope protein of HBsAg and irreversibly binds to the hepatocyte entry receptor for both HDV and HBV.

Bulevirtide has received conditional approval in the European Union. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve bulevirtide over concerns about production and delivery of the drug. There are no approved treatments for HDV in the United States.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Wedemeyer disclosed research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences. He and other coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies.

Nearly half of adults with a chronic hepatitis D (HDV) viral infection showed undetectable or greatly reduced viral RNA and normalized alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels with bulevirtide at 48 weeks, shows an ongoing phase 3 study conducted in the United States and four other countries.

The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Led by Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, of Hannover Medical School in Germany, the study included 150 patients with HDV, with and without compensated cirrhosis (mean age, 42 years; 57% male; 83% White). They were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg or 10 mg of bulevirtide subcutaneously daily for 144 weeks or, as a control group, receive no treatment for 48 weeks, followed by 10 mg of bulevirtide daily for 96 weeks. All patients were followed for 96 weeks after treatment ends.

For the primary endpoint, the combined viral and ALT response at week 48 was similar in the 2-mg (45%) and 10-mg (48%) groups, compared with 2% in the control group (one patient). Twelve percent of patients in the 2-mg group and 20% of patients in the 10-mg group had a clinical benefit, compared with none of the patients in the control group.

Among those with a combined response, normalization of the ALT level occurred in most patients by week 24, while the HDV RNA level continued to decline between week 24 and week 48, the authors wrote.

“This surrogate end point is considered to be a reasonably likely predictor of improved clinical outcomes in patients with HDV; however, longer-term data are needed to confirm the clinical benefit of bulevirtide,” the investigators wrote.

The results offer a glimmer of hope, Marc Ghany, MD, MHSc, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases wrote in an accompanying editorial. “The goal of HDV therapy is to improve patient survival by preventing progression to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer,” he wrote.

In safety results, headache, pruritus, fatigue, and eosinophilia were more common in the bulevirtide groups than in the control group. All adverse events were mild to moderate.

HDV infects about 5% of people with chronic HBV and relies on HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) for transmission and infectivity. Bulevirtide is derived from a region of the large envelope protein of HBsAg and irreversibly binds to the hepatocyte entry receptor for both HDV and HBV.

Bulevirtide has received conditional approval in the European Union. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve bulevirtide over concerns about production and delivery of the drug. There are no approved treatments for HDV in the United States.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. Wedemeyer disclosed research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences. He and other coauthors disclosed financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. O’Donoghue: We’re going to discuss a very important and emerging topic, which is the use of low-dose colchicine. I think there’s much interest in the use of this drug, which now has a Food and Drug Administration indication, which we’ll talk about further, and it’s also been written into both European and American guidelines that have been recently released.

Many people are talking about where this fits into our current armamentarium, and I think there probably is no better person to discuss this than Paul Ridker, who’s been at the forefront of research into anti-inflammatory therapeutics.
 

Lifestyle lipid-lowering paramount

Dr. O’Donoghue: As we think about the concept behind the use of colchicine, we’ve obviously done a large amount of research into lipid-lowering drugs, but where does colchicine now fit in?

Dr. Ridker: Let’s make sure we get the basics down. Anti-inflammatory therapy is going to be added on top of quality other care. This is not a replacement for lipids; it’s not a change in diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. The new data are really telling us that a patient who’s aggressively treated to guideline-recommended levels can still do much better in terms of preventing heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, and revascularization by adding low-dose colchicine as the first proven anti-inflammatory therapy for atherosclerotic disease.

I have to say, Michelle, for me, it’s been a wonderful end of a journey in many ways. This story starts almost 30 years ago for quite a few of us, thinking about inflammation and atherosclerosis. The whole C-reactive protein (CRP) story is still an ongoing one. We recently showed, for example, that residual inflammatory risk in some 30,000 patients, all taking a statin, was a far better predictor of the likelihood of more cardiovascular events, in particular cardiovascular death, than was residual cholesterol risk.

Think about that. We’re all aggressively giving second lipid-lowering drugs in our very sick patients, but that means inflammation is really the untapped piece of this.

The two clinical trials we have in front of us, the COLCOT trial and the LoDoCo2 trial – both New England Journal of Medicine papers, both with roughly 5,000 patients – provide very clear evidence that following a relatively recent myocardial infarction (that’s COLCOT) in chronic stable atherosclerosis (that’s LoDoCo2), we’re getting 25%-30% relative risk reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) on top of aggressive statin therapy. That’s a big deal. It’s safe, it works, and it’s fully consistent with all the information we have about inflammation being part and parcel of atherosclerosis. It’s a pretty exciting time.
 

Inflammatory pathway

Dr. O’Donoghue: It beautifully proves the inflammatory hypothesis in many ways. You led CANTOS, and that was a much more specific target. Here, in terms of the effects of colchicine, what do we know about how it may work on the inflammatory cascade?

Dr. Ridker: Our CANTOS trial was proof of principle that you could directly target, with a very specific monoclonal antibody, a specific piece of this innate immune cascade and lower cardiovascular event rates.

Colchicine is a more broad-spectrum drug. It does have a number of antineutrophil effects – that’s important, by the way. Neutrophils are really becoming very important in atherosclerotic disease progression. It’s an indirect inhibitor of the so-called NLRP3 inflammasome, which is where both interleukin-1 (that’s the target for canakinumab) and IL-6 are up-regulated. As you know, it’s been used to treat gout and pericarditis in high doses in short, little bursts.

The change here is this use of low-dose colchicine, that’s 0.5 mg once a day for years to treat chronic, stable atherosclerosis. It is very much like using a statin. The idea here is to prevent the progression of the disease by slowing down and maybe stabilizing the plaque so we have fewer heart attacks and strokes down the road.

It’s entering the armamentarium – at least my armamentarium – as chronic, stable secondary prevention. That’s where the new American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines also put it. It’s really in as a treatment for chronic, stable atherosclerosis. I think that’s where it belongs.
 

When to start colchicine, and in whom?

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, as we think about the efficacy, I think it’s nice, as you outlined, that we have two complementary trials that are both showing a consistent reduction in MACEs, one in the post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) state and one for more chronic patients.

At what point do you think would be the appropriate time to start therapy, and who would you be starting it for?

Dr. Ridker: Michelle, that’s a great question. There’s a very interesting analysis that just came out from the LoDoCo2 investigators. It’s kind of a landmark analysis. What they show is that 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years since the initiating myocardial infarction, the drug is very effective.

In fact, you could think about starting this drug at your clinic in patients with chronic, stable atherosclerotic disease. That’s just like we would start a statin in people who had a heart attack some time ago, and that’s absolutely fine.

I’m using it for what I call my frequent fliers, those patients who just keep coming back. They’re already on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. I have them on beta-blockers, aspirin, and all the usual things. I say, look, I can get a large risk reduction by starting them on this drug.

There are a few caveats, Michelle. Like all drugs, colchicine comes with some adverse effects. Most of them are pretty rare, but there are some patients I would not give this drug to, just to be very clear. Colchicine is cleared by the kidney and by the liver. Patients who have severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease – this is a no-go for those patients. We should talk about where patients in that realm might want to go.

Then there are some unusual drugs. Colchicine is metabolized by the CYP3A4 and the P-glycoprotein pathway. There are a few drugs, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and cyclosporine, that if your primary care doctor or internist is going to start for a short term, you probably want to stop your colchicine for a week or two.

In people with familial Mediterranean fever, for whom colchicine is lifesaving and life-changing and who take it for 20, 30, or 40 years, there’s been no increase in risk for cancer. There have been very few adverse effects. I think it’s interesting that we, who practice in North America, basically never see familial Mediterranean fever. If we were practicing in Lebanon, Israel, or North Africa, this would be a very common therapy that we’d all be extremely familiar with.

Dr. O’Donoghue: To that point, it’s interesting to hear that colchicine was even used by the ancient Greeks and ancient Egyptians. It’s a drug that’s been around for a long time.

In terms of its safety, some people have been talking about the fact that an increase in noncardiovascular death was seen in LoDoCo2. What are your thoughts on that? Is that anything that we should be concerned about?

Colchicine safety and contraindications

Dr. Ridker: First, to set the record straight, a meta-analysis has been done of all-cause mortality in the various colchicine trials, and the hazard ratio is 1.04. I’ll remind you, and all of us know, that the hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the PCSK9 trials, the bempedoic acid trials, and the ezetimibe trials are also essentially neutral. We’re in a state where we don’t let these trials roll long enough to see benefits necessarily on all-cause mortality. Some of us think we probably should, but that’s just the reality of trials.

One of most interesting things that was part of the FDA review, I suspect, was that there was no specific cause of any of this. It was not like there was a set of particular issues. I suspect that most people think this is probably the play of chance and with time, things will get better.

Again, I do want to emphasize this is not a drug for severe chronic kidney disease and severe liver disease, because those patients will get in trouble with this. The other thing that’s worth knowing is when you start a patient on low-dose colchicine – that’s 0.5 mg/d – there will be some patients who get some short-term gastrointestinal upset. That’s very common when you start colchicine at the much higher doses you might use to treat acute gout or pericarditis. In these trials, the vast majority of patients treated through that, and there were very few episodes long-term. I think it’s generally safe. That’s where we’re at.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Paul, you’ve been a leader, certainly, at looking at CRP as a marker of inflammation. Do you, in your practice, consider CRP levels when making a decision about who is appropriate for this therapy?

Dr. Ridker: That’s another terrific question. I do, because I’m trying to distinguish in my own mind patients who have residual inflammatory risk, in whom the high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) level remains high despite being on statins versus those with residual cholesterol risk, in whom I’m really predominantly worried about LDL cholesterol, that I haven’t brought it down far enough.

I do measure it, and if the CRP remains high and the LDL cholesterol is low, to me, that’s residual inflammatory risk and that’s the patient I would target this to. Conversely, if the LDL cholesterol was still, say, above some threshold of 75-100 and I’m worried about that, even if the CRP is low, I’ll probably add a second lipid-lowering drug.

The complexity of this, however, is that CRP was not measured in either LoDoCo2 or COLCOT. That’s mostly because they didn’t have much funding. These trials were done really on a shoestring. They were not sponsored by major pharma at all. We know that the median hsCRP in these trials was probably around 3.5-4 mg/L so I’m pretty comfortable doing that. Others have just advocated giving it to many patients. I must say I like to use biomarkers to think through the biology and who might have the best benefit-to-risk ratio. In my practice, I am doing it that way.
 

Inpatient vs. outpatient initiation

Dr. O’Donoghue: This is perhaps my last question for you before we wrap up. I know you talked about use of low-dose colchicine for patients with more chronic, stable coronary disease. Now obviously, COLCOT studied patients who were early post ACS, and there we certainly think about the anti-inflammatory effects as potentially having more benefit. What are your thoughts about early initiation of colchicine in that setting, the acute hospitalized setting? Do you think it’s more appropriate for an outpatient start?

Dr. Ridker: Today, I think this is all about chronic, stable atherosclerosis. Yes, COLCOT enrolled their patients within 30 days of a recent myocardial infarction, but as we all know, that’s a pretty stable phase. The vast majority were enrolled after 15 days. There were a small number enrolled within 3 days or something like that, but the benefit is about the same in all these patients.

Conversely, there’s been a small number of trials looking at colchicine in acute coronary ischemia and they’ve not been terribly promising. That makes some sense, though, right? We want to get an artery open. In acute ischemia, that’s about revascularization. It’s about oxygenation. It’s about reperfusion injury. My guess is that 3, 4, 5, or 6 days later, when it becomes a stable situation, is when the drug is probably effective.

Again, there will be some ongoing true intervention trials with large sample sizes for acute coronary ischemia. We don’t have those yet. Right now, I think it’s a therapy for chronic, stable angina. That’s many of our patients.

I would say that if you compare the relative benefit in these trials of adding ezetimibe to a statin, that’s a 5% or 6% benefit. For PCSK9 inhibitors – we all use them – it’s about a 15% benefit. These are 25%-30% risk reductions. If we’re going to think about what’s the next drug to give on top of the statin, serious consideration should be given to low-dose colchicine.

Let me also emphasize that this is not an either/or situation. This is about the fact that we now understand atherosclerosis to be a disorder both of lipid accumulation and a proinflammatory systemic response. We can give these drugs together. I suspect that the best patient care is going to be very aggressive lipid-lowering combined with pretty aggressive inflammation inhibition. I suspect that, down the road, that’s where all of us are going to be.

Dr. O’Donoghue: Thank you so much, Paul, for walking us through that today. I think it was a very nice, succinct review of the evidence, and then also just getting our minds more accustomed to the concept that we can now start to target more orthogonal axes that really get at the pathobiology of what’s going on in the atherosclerotic plaque. I think it’s an important topic.

Dr. O’Donoghue is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. Dr. Ridker is director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Both Dr. O’Donoghue and Dr. Ridker reported numerous conflicts of interest.

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Datascope/Maquet/Getinge has announced a recall of the Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because they may shut down unexpectedly due to electrical failures in the power management board or solenoid board (power source path).

“Using an affected pump may cause serious adverse health events, including unstable blood pressure, injury (e.g., inadequate blood supply or a vital organ injury), and death,” the Food and Drug Administration said in the recall notice.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge received 26 complaints, but no reports of injuries or death.

The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.

The recall includes a total of 4,586 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed from March 2, 2012, to May 19, 2023. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.

On June 5, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge sent an “important medical device advisory” to all affected customers. The letter advises customers to be sure there is an alternative IABP available to continue therapy and provide alternative hemodynamic support if there is no other means to continue counterpulsation therapy.

Customers with questions about this recall should contact their company representative or call technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET.

Last March, Datascope/Getinge recalled 2,300 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABPs because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The Cardiosave IABPs have also been previously flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Datascope/Maquet/Getinge has announced a recall of the Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because they may shut down unexpectedly due to electrical failures in the power management board or solenoid board (power source path).

“Using an affected pump may cause serious adverse health events, including unstable blood pressure, injury (e.g., inadequate blood supply or a vital organ injury), and death,” the Food and Drug Administration said in the recall notice.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge received 26 complaints, but no reports of injuries or death.

The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.

The recall includes a total of 4,586 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed from March 2, 2012, to May 19, 2023. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.

On June 5, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge sent an “important medical device advisory” to all affected customers. The letter advises customers to be sure there is an alternative IABP available to continue therapy and provide alternative hemodynamic support if there is no other means to continue counterpulsation therapy.

Customers with questions about this recall should contact their company representative or call technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET.

Last March, Datascope/Getinge recalled 2,300 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABPs because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The Cardiosave IABPs have also been previously flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Datascope/Maquet/Getinge has announced a recall of the Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because they may shut down unexpectedly due to electrical failures in the power management board or solenoid board (power source path).

“Using an affected pump may cause serious adverse health events, including unstable blood pressure, injury (e.g., inadequate blood supply or a vital organ injury), and death,” the Food and Drug Administration said in the recall notice.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge received 26 complaints, but no reports of injuries or death.

The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.

The recall includes a total of 4,586 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed from March 2, 2012, to May 19, 2023. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.

On June 5, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge sent an “important medical device advisory” to all affected customers. The letter advises customers to be sure there is an alternative IABP available to continue therapy and provide alternative hemodynamic support if there is no other means to continue counterpulsation therapy.

Customers with questions about this recall should contact their company representative or call technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET.

Last March, Datascope/Getinge recalled 2,300 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABPs because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The Cardiosave IABPs have also been previously flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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