MDedge Endocrinology

Here is how old I am: When I graduated from medical school in 1977, marketing was prohibited. It was the legal profession that challenged the ban on advertising by professionals, leading to a landmark Supreme Court decision (Bates v State Bar of Arizona, 1977), which opened the door to marketing in the legal and medical professions.

Since then, marketing has become a critical component of growing, sustaining, and supporting private medical practices. Strategies range from the basic Internet website through postings on the major social media sites, and occasionally to larger-budget campaigns involving local radio, television, or billboard advertising.

All these methods are effective, to varying degrees; but nothing provides as much benefit – relative to its comparatively low cost – as the original marketing tool, word-of-mouth patient referrals. According to one survey, a clear majority of Americans still consider word-of-mouth recommendations to be the most influential element driving purchase decisions. Of course, some of your new patients already come from such referrals; but you can get a lot more by actively encouraging your existing patients to sing your praises, rather than waiting for them to do it on their own.

Soliciting current patients for referrals does take a little planning, structure, and a basic understanding of exactly how patient referral programs work. When executed correctly, a patient referral program can add substantial growth to your practice at minimal cost.

Your first step, as with any new project, should be to identify your goals: Clearly define what kind of patients you are looking to attract. Do you want more patients for cosmetic procedures, medical treatment, skin cancer screenings, a specific diagnosis (such as psoriasis), or a general mix? Design your announcements, brochures, and other literature (more on that in a minute) with those goals in mind.

Next, identify any applicable federal or state laws that dictate what you can and cannot legally do to encourage such referrals. It might be tempting, for example, to offer discounts on future services for successful referrals; but some medical groups frown on it, some states prohibit it, and the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal to pay anyone to refer Medicare or Medicaid patients to you if you file a claim for your services. In my experience, most patients are happy to recommend someone whom they believe provides excellent care to a friend or relative without any sort of monetary incentive; but if you plan to offer a material reward of any kind, run it by your attorney first.

Once your legal ducks are in order, make patients aware that you are accepting new patients and would welcome referrals by posting notices to that effect around your office and on your website and social media pages. Outline exactly what sort of patients (based on your goals, above) you are looking for, how to refer someone, whom to contact, and what kind of information is needed. Make it clear why existing patients should refer someone to your practice. Remind them of your specialized training, advanced technology, and patient-focused approach to health care. Highlight the benefits of the program and encourage your patients to participate.

Before implementation, you will need to educate your employees about the referral program and its benefits. All staff members should understand the program and be able to answer basic questions about it from patients or referring professionals. Encourage staffers to actively promote the program during patient interactions.

Then, start making some decisions. How, specifically, will you be requesting referrals in the office? Many physicians are not comfortable asking patients themselves. If you are going to let your assistants or receptionists do it, you will need to write a script for them to follow. An example of a basic script might be, “If you are happy with the care you are receiving here, we would love for you to tell your friends and family about us.” Your staff can then hand out cards, brochures, or both to reinforce the message, and perhaps send a follow-up email to remind them.

A referral system isn’t worth the effort if you don’t know whether it is working. Establish a system to track and monitor referrals. This could be as simple as a spreadsheet or purchasing a more sophisticated software program. Ensure that you can accurately identify and credit the referring patients for their referrals.

Make sure to thank referring patients with a thank-you note or email. Expressing gratitude will encourage continued participation in the program.

A successful referral program does not happen overnight. It relies on providing exceptional patient care and building strong relationships with your existing patients. By implementing such a program, you can leverage the satisfaction and loyalty of your patients to attract new patients and grow your private practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Here is how old I am: When I graduated from medical school in 1977, marketing was prohibited. It was the legal profession that challenged the ban on advertising by professionals, leading to a landmark Supreme Court decision (Bates v State Bar of Arizona, 1977), which opened the door to marketing in the legal and medical professions.

Since then, marketing has become a critical component of growing, sustaining, and supporting private medical practices. Strategies range from the basic Internet website through postings on the major social media sites, and occasionally to larger-budget campaigns involving local radio, television, or billboard advertising.

All these methods are effective, to varying degrees; but nothing provides as much benefit – relative to its comparatively low cost – as the original marketing tool, word-of-mouth patient referrals. According to one survey, a clear majority of Americans still consider word-of-mouth recommendations to be the most influential element driving purchase decisions. Of course, some of your new patients already come from such referrals; but you can get a lot more by actively encouraging your existing patients to sing your praises, rather than waiting for them to do it on their own.

Soliciting current patients for referrals does take a little planning, structure, and a basic understanding of exactly how patient referral programs work. When executed correctly, a patient referral program can add substantial growth to your practice at minimal cost.

Your first step, as with any new project, should be to identify your goals: Clearly define what kind of patients you are looking to attract. Do you want more patients for cosmetic procedures, medical treatment, skin cancer screenings, a specific diagnosis (such as psoriasis), or a general mix? Design your announcements, brochures, and other literature (more on that in a minute) with those goals in mind.

Next, identify any applicable federal or state laws that dictate what you can and cannot legally do to encourage such referrals. It might be tempting, for example, to offer discounts on future services for successful referrals; but some medical groups frown on it, some states prohibit it, and the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal to pay anyone to refer Medicare or Medicaid patients to you if you file a claim for your services. In my experience, most patients are happy to recommend someone whom they believe provides excellent care to a friend or relative without any sort of monetary incentive; but if you plan to offer a material reward of any kind, run it by your attorney first.

Once your legal ducks are in order, make patients aware that you are accepting new patients and would welcome referrals by posting notices to that effect around your office and on your website and social media pages. Outline exactly what sort of patients (based on your goals, above) you are looking for, how to refer someone, whom to contact, and what kind of information is needed. Make it clear why existing patients should refer someone to your practice. Remind them of your specialized training, advanced technology, and patient-focused approach to health care. Highlight the benefits of the program and encourage your patients to participate.

Before implementation, you will need to educate your employees about the referral program and its benefits. All staff members should understand the program and be able to answer basic questions about it from patients or referring professionals. Encourage staffers to actively promote the program during patient interactions.

Then, start making some decisions. How, specifically, will you be requesting referrals in the office? Many physicians are not comfortable asking patients themselves. If you are going to let your assistants or receptionists do it, you will need to write a script for them to follow. An example of a basic script might be, “If you are happy with the care you are receiving here, we would love for you to tell your friends and family about us.” Your staff can then hand out cards, brochures, or both to reinforce the message, and perhaps send a follow-up email to remind them.

A referral system isn’t worth the effort if you don’t know whether it is working. Establish a system to track and monitor referrals. This could be as simple as a spreadsheet or purchasing a more sophisticated software program. Ensure that you can accurately identify and credit the referring patients for their referrals.

Make sure to thank referring patients with a thank-you note or email. Expressing gratitude will encourage continued participation in the program.

A successful referral program does not happen overnight. It relies on providing exceptional patient care and building strong relationships with your existing patients. By implementing such a program, you can leverage the satisfaction and loyalty of your patients to attract new patients and grow your private practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Here is how old I am: When I graduated from medical school in 1977, marketing was prohibited. It was the legal profession that challenged the ban on advertising by professionals, leading to a landmark Supreme Court decision (Bates v State Bar of Arizona, 1977), which opened the door to marketing in the legal and medical professions.

Since then, marketing has become a critical component of growing, sustaining, and supporting private medical practices. Strategies range from the basic Internet website through postings on the major social media sites, and occasionally to larger-budget campaigns involving local radio, television, or billboard advertising.

All these methods are effective, to varying degrees; but nothing provides as much benefit – relative to its comparatively low cost – as the original marketing tool, word-of-mouth patient referrals. According to one survey, a clear majority of Americans still consider word-of-mouth recommendations to be the most influential element driving purchase decisions. Of course, some of your new patients already come from such referrals; but you can get a lot more by actively encouraging your existing patients to sing your praises, rather than waiting for them to do it on their own.

Soliciting current patients for referrals does take a little planning, structure, and a basic understanding of exactly how patient referral programs work. When executed correctly, a patient referral program can add substantial growth to your practice at minimal cost.

Your first step, as with any new project, should be to identify your goals: Clearly define what kind of patients you are looking to attract. Do you want more patients for cosmetic procedures, medical treatment, skin cancer screenings, a specific diagnosis (such as psoriasis), or a general mix? Design your announcements, brochures, and other literature (more on that in a minute) with those goals in mind.

Next, identify any applicable federal or state laws that dictate what you can and cannot legally do to encourage such referrals. It might be tempting, for example, to offer discounts on future services for successful referrals; but some medical groups frown on it, some states prohibit it, and the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal to pay anyone to refer Medicare or Medicaid patients to you if you file a claim for your services. In my experience, most patients are happy to recommend someone whom they believe provides excellent care to a friend or relative without any sort of monetary incentive; but if you plan to offer a material reward of any kind, run it by your attorney first.

Once your legal ducks are in order, make patients aware that you are accepting new patients and would welcome referrals by posting notices to that effect around your office and on your website and social media pages. Outline exactly what sort of patients (based on your goals, above) you are looking for, how to refer someone, whom to contact, and what kind of information is needed. Make it clear why existing patients should refer someone to your practice. Remind them of your specialized training, advanced technology, and patient-focused approach to health care. Highlight the benefits of the program and encourage your patients to participate.

Before implementation, you will need to educate your employees about the referral program and its benefits. All staff members should understand the program and be able to answer basic questions about it from patients or referring professionals. Encourage staffers to actively promote the program during patient interactions.

Then, start making some decisions. How, specifically, will you be requesting referrals in the office? Many physicians are not comfortable asking patients themselves. If you are going to let your assistants or receptionists do it, you will need to write a script for them to follow. An example of a basic script might be, “If you are happy with the care you are receiving here, we would love for you to tell your friends and family about us.” Your staff can then hand out cards, brochures, or both to reinforce the message, and perhaps send a follow-up email to remind them.

A referral system isn’t worth the effort if you don’t know whether it is working. Establish a system to track and monitor referrals. This could be as simple as a spreadsheet or purchasing a more sophisticated software program. Ensure that you can accurately identify and credit the referring patients for their referrals.

Make sure to thank referring patients with a thank-you note or email. Expressing gratitude will encourage continued participation in the program.

A successful referral program does not happen overnight. It relies on providing exceptional patient care and building strong relationships with your existing patients. By implementing such a program, you can leverage the satisfaction and loyalty of your patients to attract new patients and grow your private practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

People who report frequently adding salt to their food are at significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 402,982 participants in the UK Biobank from March 2006 to October 2010 who had completed a questionnaire about the frequency with which they added salt to food and who did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cancer, or cardiovascular disease at baseline.
• Urine samples were collected at baseline, sodium and potassium levels were measured, and 24-hour sodium excretion was estimated.
• Investigators followed participants from baseline to diagnosis of diabetes, death, or the censoring date (May 23, 2021), whichever occurred first. Information on T2D events were collected through medical history linkage to data on hospital admissions, questionnaire, and the death register.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 11.9 years, 13,120 incident cases of T2D were documented.
• Compared with people who reported “never/rarely” adding salt to food, the sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing T2D were 1.20, 1.32, and 1.86 for those who reported “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” adding salt, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After further adjustment for the Townsend deprivation index, education level, income, smoking, drinking, physical activity, and high cholesterol, the association was attenuated but remained significant, with HRs of 1.11, 1.18, and 1.28 for “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” responses, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After full adjustment, there was also a dose-dependent relationship across quintiles of urinary sodium and higher T2D risk, with HRs of 1 (reference), 1.12, 1.17, 1.28, and 1.34 for quintiles 2-5, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• Body fat percentage and body fat mass significantly mediated the association of adding salt with T2D, by estimated effects of 37.9% and 39.9%, respectively (both P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide support that reduction of adding salt to foods may act as a potential behavioral intervention approach for preventing T2D. Future clinical trials are needed to further validate our findings,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Xuan Wang, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues was published in the November 2023 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers could not completely exclude the possibility that high frequency of adding salt to foods is a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. Self-reported frequency of adding salt to food might be subject to information bias and did not provide quantitative information on total sodium intake. In addition, participants were mainly of European descent, making application of the findings to other ethnic groups unclear; the observational design meant researchers could not rule out residual confounding; and information on addition of salt to food was available only at baseline, so potential changes in salt consumption during follow-up could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Fogarty International Center; and Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People who report frequently adding salt to their food are at significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 402,982 participants in the UK Biobank from March 2006 to October 2010 who had completed a questionnaire about the frequency with which they added salt to food and who did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cancer, or cardiovascular disease at baseline.
• Urine samples were collected at baseline, sodium and potassium levels were measured, and 24-hour sodium excretion was estimated.
• Investigators followed participants from baseline to diagnosis of diabetes, death, or the censoring date (May 23, 2021), whichever occurred first. Information on T2D events were collected through medical history linkage to data on hospital admissions, questionnaire, and the death register.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 11.9 years, 13,120 incident cases of T2D were documented.
• Compared with people who reported “never/rarely” adding salt to food, the sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing T2D were 1.20, 1.32, and 1.86 for those who reported “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” adding salt, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After further adjustment for the Townsend deprivation index, education level, income, smoking, drinking, physical activity, and high cholesterol, the association was attenuated but remained significant, with HRs of 1.11, 1.18, and 1.28 for “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” responses, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After full adjustment, there was also a dose-dependent relationship across quintiles of urinary sodium and higher T2D risk, with HRs of 1 (reference), 1.12, 1.17, 1.28, and 1.34 for quintiles 2-5, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• Body fat percentage and body fat mass significantly mediated the association of adding salt with T2D, by estimated effects of 37.9% and 39.9%, respectively (both P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide support that reduction of adding salt to foods may act as a potential behavioral intervention approach for preventing T2D. Future clinical trials are needed to further validate our findings,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Xuan Wang, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues was published in the November 2023 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers could not completely exclude the possibility that high frequency of adding salt to foods is a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. Self-reported frequency of adding salt to food might be subject to information bias and did not provide quantitative information on total sodium intake. In addition, participants were mainly of European descent, making application of the findings to other ethnic groups unclear; the observational design meant researchers could not rule out residual confounding; and information on addition of salt to food was available only at baseline, so potential changes in salt consumption during follow-up could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Fogarty International Center; and Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People who report frequently adding salt to their food are at significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 402,982 participants in the UK Biobank from March 2006 to October 2010 who had completed a questionnaire about the frequency with which they added salt to food and who did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cancer, or cardiovascular disease at baseline.
• Urine samples were collected at baseline, sodium and potassium levels were measured, and 24-hour sodium excretion was estimated.
• Investigators followed participants from baseline to diagnosis of diabetes, death, or the censoring date (May 23, 2021), whichever occurred first. Information on T2D events were collected through medical history linkage to data on hospital admissions, questionnaire, and the death register.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 11.9 years, 13,120 incident cases of T2D were documented.
• Compared with people who reported “never/rarely” adding salt to food, the sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing T2D were 1.20, 1.32, and 1.86 for those who reported “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” adding salt, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After further adjustment for the Townsend deprivation index, education level, income, smoking, drinking, physical activity, and high cholesterol, the association was attenuated but remained significant, with HRs of 1.11, 1.18, and 1.28 for “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” responses, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After full adjustment, there was also a dose-dependent relationship across quintiles of urinary sodium and higher T2D risk, with HRs of 1 (reference), 1.12, 1.17, 1.28, and 1.34 for quintiles 2-5, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• Body fat percentage and body fat mass significantly mediated the association of adding salt with T2D, by estimated effects of 37.9% and 39.9%, respectively (both P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide support that reduction of adding salt to foods may act as a potential behavioral intervention approach for preventing T2D. Future clinical trials are needed to further validate our findings,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Xuan Wang, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues was published in the November 2023 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers could not completely exclude the possibility that high frequency of adding salt to foods is a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. Self-reported frequency of adding salt to food might be subject to information bias and did not provide quantitative information on total sodium intake. In addition, participants were mainly of European descent, making application of the findings to other ethnic groups unclear; the observational design meant researchers could not rule out residual confounding; and information on addition of salt to food was available only at baseline, so potential changes in salt consumption during follow-up could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Fogarty International Center; and Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In an early phase multicenter clinical study, large reductions in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), were achieved with a well-tolerated small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic, lepodisiran.

The reductions in serum Lp(a) in patients receiving lepodisiran were dose dependent but adverse events were not, said Steven E. Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine.

Rather, drug-related adverse events “were uncommon and generally similar across all lepodisiran doses and the placebo group,” reported Dr. Nissen, who pointed out that safety and tolerability were the primary endpoints and purpose of this phase 1 study.
 

Lp(a) strongly associated with CV risk

Similar to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated levels of serum Lp(a) have been associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In a 2022 review article that summarized pathophysiological, observational, and genetic studies, Lp(a) was found to be implicated in vascular inflammation, atherogenesis, calcification, and thrombosis.

Furthermore, Lp(a) has been associated with residual risk of cardiovascular (CV) events even after tight control of other risk factors, including elevated LDL-C, Dr. Nissen said.

So far, no well-tolerated therapy has been found to be effective for reducing Lp(a), but siRNA is a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Nissen, who presented these results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. They were also published online in JAMA.

By silencing target genes, siRNA therapies can inhibit a basic step in a given pathological process. In this case, lepodisiran silences the LPA gene to halt encoding of apolipoprotein(a), which plays a key role in Lp(a) production.

Lepodisiran is not the only treatment in development for Lp(a), noted the AHA-invited discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, chair in cardiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She mentioned several other siRNA therapies, including olpasiran that was effective in a phase 2 trial she led and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs with different mechanisms, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen, showed activity when tested earlier this year in a phase 1 study. No study has yet been conducted to link reductions in Lp(a) with CV event risk reduction.

The current study with lepodisiran was conducted with the participation of five clinical research sites in the United States and Singapore. Participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years were enrolled if they had a serum Lp(a) of at least 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL), which is considered moderately elevated.

They were excluded if they had CV disease or significant risk factors, including a blood pressure greater than 160/40 mm Hg, impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or tobacco use (> 10 cigarettes/day).

Of 340 candidates screened, 48 were randomly assigned to one placebo or six lepodisiran groups. There were 12 participants in the placebo group and 6 in each of the lepodisiran dosing groups (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, and 608 mg). All doses and placebo were administered subcutaneously one time with a planned follow-up of up to 48 weeks.
 

Safety profile is placebo-like

The single most common adverse event, shared by those randomly assigned to placebo, was injection-site reaction. There were no adverse events, including laboratory abnormalities, that were persistent and clearly different for those assigned to any dose of lepodisiran relative to placebo.

The maximum median percentage change in serum Lp(a) out to day 337 of follow-up was 5% reduction in the placebo group. In the active treatment groups, the reductions were 41% on 4 mg, 59% on 12 mg, 76% on 32 mg, 96% on 304 mg, and 97% on 608 mg.

These reductions were generally sustained for as long as therapy was maintained. Maximal reductions were reached at day 85 in the 4-mg group but were achieved by day 29 in the 605-mg group, Dr. Nissen reported. In fact, serum Lp(a) was undetectable in the 605-mg group at day 29 and remained so until day 281.

Currently, there is no practical treatment for Lp(a). The only potential exception, apheresis, is “cumbersome” to perform and must be repeated for sustained reductions. Niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors are known to provide modest reductions in Lp(a), but Dr. Nissen said they are too modest to expect a meaningful clinical benefit.
 

Lp(a) not responsive to lifestyle changes

Statins as well as all lifestyle modifications, including diet, have been shown to have “little or no effect,” Dr. Nissen said.

The safety and the evidence so far of sustained Lp(a) lowering has already led to a phase 2 trial, according to Dr. Nissen, but the more important test for the future of lepodisiran will be studies powered to confirm reductions in MACE. Lepodisiran may finally allow that hypothesis to be tested.

“I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for evidence that we can reliably reduce Lp(a),” said Karol Watson, MD, PhD, who has a research interest in lipids and is a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although she conceded that the overwhelming evidence that Lp(a) is a risk factor does not ensure that any specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy will be clinically viable, she suggested this drug is a promising candidate to move this field forward.

“At the highest doses, lepodisiran is not just lowering Lp(a), it appears to be getting rid of it,” she said.

Dr. O’Donoghue said that the phase 1 results suggest lepodisiran might have a somewhat longer duration of action than other siRNA therapies studied for Lp(a) so far, but said larger trials are needed to determine whether the growing number of drugs in this class differ in ways that are clinically meaningful.

Overall, the excitement in this field is probably mostly driven by the fact that there are so many promising therapies for Lp(a) that address the target in so many unique ways. Dr. O’Donoghue cited, as an example, a gene-editing therapy called CTX320 that showed impressive effects in an animal study presented at the AHA meeting as a poster. She called the pipeline for treating Lp(a) “rich.”

Elevated Lp(a) is genetically determined, so levels do not generally change over time, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

“It is not affected by your diet. It is not affected by your exercise. What your level is will be the level you will have for the rest of your life,” he said. Generally, it is recommended to have Lp(a) measured just once to more accurately calculate cardiovascular risk, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones predicted that this lipid subfraction might be measured more frequently to verify control if a therapeutic becomes available.

Dr. Nissen agreed. Estimating that 64 million people in the United States have significantly elevated Lp(a), he expects this risk to be addressed as a specific and independent target in CV risk management when and if it becomes treatable.

Dr. Nissen reported financial relationships with Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an early phase multicenter clinical study, large reductions in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), were achieved with a well-tolerated small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic, lepodisiran.

The reductions in serum Lp(a) in patients receiving lepodisiran were dose dependent but adverse events were not, said Steven E. Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine.

Rather, drug-related adverse events “were uncommon and generally similar across all lepodisiran doses and the placebo group,” reported Dr. Nissen, who pointed out that safety and tolerability were the primary endpoints and purpose of this phase 1 study.
 

Lp(a) strongly associated with CV risk

Similar to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated levels of serum Lp(a) have been associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In a 2022 review article that summarized pathophysiological, observational, and genetic studies, Lp(a) was found to be implicated in vascular inflammation, atherogenesis, calcification, and thrombosis.

Furthermore, Lp(a) has been associated with residual risk of cardiovascular (CV) events even after tight control of other risk factors, including elevated LDL-C, Dr. Nissen said.

So far, no well-tolerated therapy has been found to be effective for reducing Lp(a), but siRNA is a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Nissen, who presented these results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. They were also published online in JAMA.

By silencing target genes, siRNA therapies can inhibit a basic step in a given pathological process. In this case, lepodisiran silences the LPA gene to halt encoding of apolipoprotein(a), which plays a key role in Lp(a) production.

Lepodisiran is not the only treatment in development for Lp(a), noted the AHA-invited discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, chair in cardiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She mentioned several other siRNA therapies, including olpasiran that was effective in a phase 2 trial she led and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs with different mechanisms, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen, showed activity when tested earlier this year in a phase 1 study. No study has yet been conducted to link reductions in Lp(a) with CV event risk reduction.

The current study with lepodisiran was conducted with the participation of five clinical research sites in the United States and Singapore. Participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years were enrolled if they had a serum Lp(a) of at least 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL), which is considered moderately elevated.

They were excluded if they had CV disease or significant risk factors, including a blood pressure greater than 160/40 mm Hg, impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or tobacco use (> 10 cigarettes/day).

Of 340 candidates screened, 48 were randomly assigned to one placebo or six lepodisiran groups. There were 12 participants in the placebo group and 6 in each of the lepodisiran dosing groups (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, and 608 mg). All doses and placebo were administered subcutaneously one time with a planned follow-up of up to 48 weeks.
 

Safety profile is placebo-like

The single most common adverse event, shared by those randomly assigned to placebo, was injection-site reaction. There were no adverse events, including laboratory abnormalities, that were persistent and clearly different for those assigned to any dose of lepodisiran relative to placebo.

The maximum median percentage change in serum Lp(a) out to day 337 of follow-up was 5% reduction in the placebo group. In the active treatment groups, the reductions were 41% on 4 mg, 59% on 12 mg, 76% on 32 mg, 96% on 304 mg, and 97% on 608 mg.

These reductions were generally sustained for as long as therapy was maintained. Maximal reductions were reached at day 85 in the 4-mg group but were achieved by day 29 in the 605-mg group, Dr. Nissen reported. In fact, serum Lp(a) was undetectable in the 605-mg group at day 29 and remained so until day 281.

Currently, there is no practical treatment for Lp(a). The only potential exception, apheresis, is “cumbersome” to perform and must be repeated for sustained reductions. Niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors are known to provide modest reductions in Lp(a), but Dr. Nissen said they are too modest to expect a meaningful clinical benefit.
 

Lp(a) not responsive to lifestyle changes

Statins as well as all lifestyle modifications, including diet, have been shown to have “little or no effect,” Dr. Nissen said.

The safety and the evidence so far of sustained Lp(a) lowering has already led to a phase 2 trial, according to Dr. Nissen, but the more important test for the future of lepodisiran will be studies powered to confirm reductions in MACE. Lepodisiran may finally allow that hypothesis to be tested.

“I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for evidence that we can reliably reduce Lp(a),” said Karol Watson, MD, PhD, who has a research interest in lipids and is a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although she conceded that the overwhelming evidence that Lp(a) is a risk factor does not ensure that any specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy will be clinically viable, she suggested this drug is a promising candidate to move this field forward.

“At the highest doses, lepodisiran is not just lowering Lp(a), it appears to be getting rid of it,” she said.

Dr. O’Donoghue said that the phase 1 results suggest lepodisiran might have a somewhat longer duration of action than other siRNA therapies studied for Lp(a) so far, but said larger trials are needed to determine whether the growing number of drugs in this class differ in ways that are clinically meaningful.

Overall, the excitement in this field is probably mostly driven by the fact that there are so many promising therapies for Lp(a) that address the target in so many unique ways. Dr. O’Donoghue cited, as an example, a gene-editing therapy called CTX320 that showed impressive effects in an animal study presented at the AHA meeting as a poster. She called the pipeline for treating Lp(a) “rich.”

Elevated Lp(a) is genetically determined, so levels do not generally change over time, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

“It is not affected by your diet. It is not affected by your exercise. What your level is will be the level you will have for the rest of your life,” he said. Generally, it is recommended to have Lp(a) measured just once to more accurately calculate cardiovascular risk, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones predicted that this lipid subfraction might be measured more frequently to verify control if a therapeutic becomes available.

Dr. Nissen agreed. Estimating that 64 million people in the United States have significantly elevated Lp(a), he expects this risk to be addressed as a specific and independent target in CV risk management when and if it becomes treatable.

Dr. Nissen reported financial relationships with Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an early phase multicenter clinical study, large reductions in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), were achieved with a well-tolerated small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic, lepodisiran.

The reductions in serum Lp(a) in patients receiving lepodisiran were dose dependent but adverse events were not, said Steven E. Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine.

Rather, drug-related adverse events “were uncommon and generally similar across all lepodisiran doses and the placebo group,” reported Dr. Nissen, who pointed out that safety and tolerability were the primary endpoints and purpose of this phase 1 study.
 

Lp(a) strongly associated with CV risk

Similar to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated levels of serum Lp(a) have been associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In a 2022 review article that summarized pathophysiological, observational, and genetic studies, Lp(a) was found to be implicated in vascular inflammation, atherogenesis, calcification, and thrombosis.

Furthermore, Lp(a) has been associated with residual risk of cardiovascular (CV) events even after tight control of other risk factors, including elevated LDL-C, Dr. Nissen said.

So far, no well-tolerated therapy has been found to be effective for reducing Lp(a), but siRNA is a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Nissen, who presented these results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. They were also published online in JAMA.

By silencing target genes, siRNA therapies can inhibit a basic step in a given pathological process. In this case, lepodisiran silences the LPA gene to halt encoding of apolipoprotein(a), which plays a key role in Lp(a) production.

Lepodisiran is not the only treatment in development for Lp(a), noted the AHA-invited discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, chair in cardiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She mentioned several other siRNA therapies, including olpasiran that was effective in a phase 2 trial she led and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs with different mechanisms, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen, showed activity when tested earlier this year in a phase 1 study. No study has yet been conducted to link reductions in Lp(a) with CV event risk reduction.

The current study with lepodisiran was conducted with the participation of five clinical research sites in the United States and Singapore. Participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years were enrolled if they had a serum Lp(a) of at least 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL), which is considered moderately elevated.

They were excluded if they had CV disease or significant risk factors, including a blood pressure greater than 160/40 mm Hg, impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or tobacco use (> 10 cigarettes/day).

Of 340 candidates screened, 48 were randomly assigned to one placebo or six lepodisiran groups. There were 12 participants in the placebo group and 6 in each of the lepodisiran dosing groups (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, and 608 mg). All doses and placebo were administered subcutaneously one time with a planned follow-up of up to 48 weeks.
 

Safety profile is placebo-like

The single most common adverse event, shared by those randomly assigned to placebo, was injection-site reaction. There were no adverse events, including laboratory abnormalities, that were persistent and clearly different for those assigned to any dose of lepodisiran relative to placebo.

The maximum median percentage change in serum Lp(a) out to day 337 of follow-up was 5% reduction in the placebo group. In the active treatment groups, the reductions were 41% on 4 mg, 59% on 12 mg, 76% on 32 mg, 96% on 304 mg, and 97% on 608 mg.

These reductions were generally sustained for as long as therapy was maintained. Maximal reductions were reached at day 85 in the 4-mg group but were achieved by day 29 in the 605-mg group, Dr. Nissen reported. In fact, serum Lp(a) was undetectable in the 605-mg group at day 29 and remained so until day 281.

Currently, there is no practical treatment for Lp(a). The only potential exception, apheresis, is “cumbersome” to perform and must be repeated for sustained reductions. Niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors are known to provide modest reductions in Lp(a), but Dr. Nissen said they are too modest to expect a meaningful clinical benefit.
 

Lp(a) not responsive to lifestyle changes

Statins as well as all lifestyle modifications, including diet, have been shown to have “little or no effect,” Dr. Nissen said.

The safety and the evidence so far of sustained Lp(a) lowering has already led to a phase 2 trial, according to Dr. Nissen, but the more important test for the future of lepodisiran will be studies powered to confirm reductions in MACE. Lepodisiran may finally allow that hypothesis to be tested.

“I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for evidence that we can reliably reduce Lp(a),” said Karol Watson, MD, PhD, who has a research interest in lipids and is a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although she conceded that the overwhelming evidence that Lp(a) is a risk factor does not ensure that any specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy will be clinically viable, she suggested this drug is a promising candidate to move this field forward.

“At the highest doses, lepodisiran is not just lowering Lp(a), it appears to be getting rid of it,” she said.

Dr. O’Donoghue said that the phase 1 results suggest lepodisiran might have a somewhat longer duration of action than other siRNA therapies studied for Lp(a) so far, but said larger trials are needed to determine whether the growing number of drugs in this class differ in ways that are clinically meaningful.

Overall, the excitement in this field is probably mostly driven by the fact that there are so many promising therapies for Lp(a) that address the target in so many unique ways. Dr. O’Donoghue cited, as an example, a gene-editing therapy called CTX320 that showed impressive effects in an animal study presented at the AHA meeting as a poster. She called the pipeline for treating Lp(a) “rich.”

Elevated Lp(a) is genetically determined, so levels do not generally change over time, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

“It is not affected by your diet. It is not affected by your exercise. What your level is will be the level you will have for the rest of your life,” he said. Generally, it is recommended to have Lp(a) measured just once to more accurately calculate cardiovascular risk, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones predicted that this lipid subfraction might be measured more frequently to verify control if a therapeutic becomes available.

Dr. Nissen agreed. Estimating that 64 million people in the United States have significantly elevated Lp(a), he expects this risk to be addressed as a specific and independent target in CV risk management when and if it becomes treatable.

Dr. Nissen reported financial relationships with Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Final results of the SELECT trial have shown that the antiobesity drug semaglutide (Wegovy) produced a consistent reduction of around 20% versus placebo across major cardiovascular event endpoints over the approximately 3-year follow-up in patients with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

“This is a very exciting set of results. I think it is going to have a big impact on a large number of people,” lead investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, vice chair for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. 

“And from a scientific standpoint, these data show that we now have a new pathway or a new modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease that we can use in our patients who have overweight or obesity,” he added.

The trial involved 17,604 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or above (mean BMI was 33), who were randomly assigned to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, given by subcutaneous injection once weekly at a gradually escalating dose up to 2.4 mg daily by week 16, or placebo. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 5.8% and 66.4% of patients met the criteria for prediabetes.

Patients lost a mean of 9.4% of body weight over the first 2 years with semaglutide versus 0.88% with placebo.

The primary cardiovascular endpoint – a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke – was reduced significantly, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90; P < .001).  

Death from cardiovascular causes, the first confirmatory secondary endpoint, showed a 15% reduction (HR, 0.85; P = .07) but this missed meeting criteria for statistical significance, and because of the hierarchical design of the trial, this meant that superiority testing was not performed for the remaining confirmatory secondary endpoints.

However, results showed reductions of around 20% for the heart failure composite endpoint and for all-cause mortality, with confidence intervals that did not cross 1.0, and directionally consistent effects were observed for all supportive secondary endpoints.

The HR for the heart failure composite endpoint was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and the HR for death from any cause was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). Nonfatal MI was reduced by 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85).

The effects of semaglutide on the primary endpoint appeared to be similar across all prespecified subgroups.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 16.6% in the semaglutide group, mostly gastrointestinal effects, and in 8.2% in the placebo group.

The trial results were presented by Dr. Lincoff at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association . They were also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Lincoff explained that there is a growing pandemic of overweight and obesity worldwide with clear evidence for years that these conditions increase the risk of cardiovascular events – and yet there has been no evidence, until now, that any pharmacologic or lifestyle therapy can reduce the increased risk conferred by overweight/obesity. 

“Patients in the trial were already taking standard of care therapies for other risk factors, such as hypertension and cholesterol, so this drug is giving additional benefit,” he said.

Dr. Lincoff believes these data will lead to a large increase in use of semaglutide, which is already available for the treatment of obesity and diabetes but can be difficult to get reimbursed.

“There is a lot of difficulty getting payors to pay for this drug for weight management. But with this new data from the SELECT trial there should be more willingness – at least in the population with a history of cardiovascular disease,” he commented. In diabetes, where it is already established that there is a cardiovascular risk reduction, it is easier to get these drugs reimbursed, he noted.

On the outcome data, Dr. Lincoff said he could not explain why cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced while all-cause mortality appeared to be cut more definitively.

“The cardiovascular death curves separated, then merged, then separated again. We don’t really know what is going on there. It may be that some deaths were misclassified. This trial was conducted through the COVID era and there may have been less information available on some patients because of that.”

But he added: “The all-cause mortality is more reassuring, as it doesn’t depend on classifying cause of death. Because of the design of the trial, we can’t formally claim a reduction in all-cause mortality, but the results do suggest there is an effect on this endpoint. And all the different types of cardiovascular events were similarly reduced in a consistent way, with similar effects seen across all subgroups. That is very reassuring.”
 

‘A new era’ for patients with obesity

Outside experts in the field were also impressed with the data.

Designated discussant of the trial at the AHA meeting, Ania Jastreboff, MD, associate professor medicine (endocrinology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the SELECT trial was “a turning point in the treatment of obesity and a call to action.

“Now is the time to treat obesity to improve health outcomes in people with cardiovascular disease,” she said.

Dr. Jastreboff noted that high BMI was estimated to have accounted for 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015, two-thirds of which were caused by cardiovascular disease. And she presented data showing that U.S. individuals meeting the SELECT criteria increased from 4.3 million in 2011-12 to 6.6 million in 2017-18.

She highlighted one major limitation of the SELECT trial: it enrolled a low number of women (38%) and ethnic minorities, with only 12% of the trial population being Black.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, director of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, described the SELECT results as “altogether a compelling package of data.”

“These results are even better than I had expected,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “There is a significant reduction in MI as I had anticipated, but additionally, there is a reduction in all-cause death. One can debate the statistics, though on a common-sense level, I think it is a real finding,” he noted.

“Given that MI, heart failure, nephropathy, and revascularization are all reduced, and even stroke is numerically lower, it makes sense that all-cause mortality would be reduced,” he said. “To me, apart from the GI side effects, this counts as a home run.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic’s Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, was similarly upbeat.

“These data prove what many of us have long suspected – that losing weight can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is great news for patients living with obesity. The obesity epidemic is out of control,” he added. “We need to have therapies that improve cardiovascular outcomes caused by obesity and this shows that semaglutide can do that. I think this is the beginning of a whole new era for patients with obesity.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the results of SELECT “both intriguing and compelling. Certainly, these findings lend further support to the use of semaglutide in a much broader secondary prevention population of individuals with obesity.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, director of the center for cardiometabolic disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the SELECT study as “a landmark trial which will change the practice of medicine in regard to how we treat obesity.”

He compared it with the landmark 4S trial in 1994, the first study in the area of cholesterol lowering therapy to show a clear benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and total mortality, and “began a drastic change in the way that physicians approached treatment of cholesterol.”

On the more robust reduction in all-cause death, compared with cardiovascular death,

Dr. Ballantyne pointed out: “Adjudication of dead or alive is something that everyone gets right. In contrast, the cause of death is sometime difficult to ascertain. Most importantly, the benefit on total mortality also provides assurance that this therapy does not have some adverse effect on increasing noncardiovascular deaths.”
 

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

On the side effects seen with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff reported that 10% of patients in the semaglutide group discontinued treatment because of GI side effects versus 2% in the placebo arm. He said this was “an expected issue.”

“GI effects, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, are known side effects of this whole class of drugs. The dose is slowly escalated to manage these adverse effects but there will be a proportion of patients who can’t tolerate it, although the vast majority are able to continue.”

He noted that, while dose reduction was allowed, of the patients who were still on the drug at 2 years, 77% were on the full dose, and 23% were on a reduced dose.

Dr. Lincoff pointed out that there were no serious adverse events with semaglutide. “This is the largest database by far now on the drug with a long-term follow up and we didn’t see the emergence of any new safety signals, which is very reassuring.”  

Dr. Nissen said the 16% rate of patients stopping the drug because of tolerability “is not a trivial number.”

He noted that the semaglutide dose used in this study was larger than that used in diabetes.

“They did this to try to achieve more weight loss but then you get more issues with tolerability. It’s a trade-off. If patients are experiencing adverse effects, the dose can be reduced, but then you will lose some effect. All the GLP-1 agonists have GI side effects – it’s part of the way that they work.”
 

Just weight loss or other actions too?

Speculating on the mechanism behind the reduction in cardiovascular events with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff does not think it is just weight reduction.

“The event curves start to diverge very soon after the start of the trial and yet the maximum weight loss doesn’t occur until about 65 weeks. I think something else is going on.”

In the paper, the researchers noted that GLP-1 agonists have been shown in animal studies to reduce inflammation, improve endothelial and left ventricular function, promote plaque stability, and decrease platelet aggregation. In this trial, semaglutide was associated with changes in multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, including blood pressure, waist circumference, glycemic control, nephropathy, and levels of lipids and C-reactive protein.

Dr. Lincoff also pointed out that similar benefits were seen in patients with different levels of overweight, and in those who were prediabetic and those who weren’t, so benefit was not dependent on baseline BMI or glycated hemoglobin levels.

Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that other effects, as well as weight loss, could be involved. “The reduction in events with semaglutide appeared very early after initiation and far preceded the drug’s maximal effects on weight reduction. This might suggest that the drug offers other cardioprotective effects through pathways independent of weight loss. Certainly, semaglutide and the other GLP-1 agonists appear to attenuate inflammation, and the patterns of redistribution of adipose tissue may also be of interest.”

She also pointed out that the reduction in cardiovascular events appeared even earlier in this population of obese nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease than in prior studies of patients with diabetes. “It may suggest that there is particular benefit for this type of therapy in patients with an inflammatory milieu. I look forward to seeing further analyses to help tease apart the correlation between changes in inflammation, observed weight loss and cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Effect on clinical practice

With the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease being overweight, these results are obviously going to increase demand for semaglutide, but cost and availability are going to be an issue.

Dr. Bhatt noted that semaglutide is already very popular. “Weight loss drugs are somewhat different from other medications. I can spend 30 minutes trying to convince a patient to take a statin, but here people realize it’s going to cause weight loss and they come in asking for it even if they don’t strictly need it. I think it’s good to have cardiovascular outcome data because now at least for this population of patients, we have evidence to prescribe it.”

He agreed with Dr. Lincoff that these new data should encourage insurance companies to cover the drug, because in reducing cardiovascular events it should also improve downstream health care costs.

“It is providing clear cardiovascular and kidney benefit, so it is in the best interest to the health care system to fund this drug,” he said. “I hope insurers look at it rationally in this way, but they may also be frightened of the explosion of patients wanting this drug and now doctors wanting to prescribe it and how that would affect their shorter-term costs.”

Dr. Lincoff said it would not be easy to prioritize certain groups. “We couldn’t identify any subgroup who showed particularly more benefit than any others. But in the evolution of any therapy, there is a time period where it is in short supply and prohibitively expensive, then over time when there is some competition and pricing deals occur as more people are advocating for it, they become more available.”
 

‘A welcome treatment option’

In an editorial accompanying publication of the trial, Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, noted that baseline risk factors such as LDL cholesterol (78 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure (131 mm Hg) were not ideal in the semaglutide group in this trial, and they suggest that the benefits of semaglutide may be attenuated when these measures are better controlled.

But given that more than 20 million people in the United States have coronary artery disease, with the majority having overweight or obesity and only approximately 30% having concomitant diabetes, they said that, even in the context of well-controlled risk factors and very low LDL cholesterol levels, the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in these persons is unacceptably high. “Thus, the SELECT trial provides a welcome treatment option that can be extended to millions of additional patients.”

However, the editorialists cautioned that semaglutide at current pricing comes with a significant cost to both patients and society, which makes this treatment inaccessible for many. 

They added that intensive lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery remain effective but underutilized options for obesity, and that the prevention of obesity before it develops should be the primary goal.

The SELECT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Lincoff is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Nissen are involved in a cardiovascular outcomes trial with a new investigational weight loss drug from Lilly. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Ballantyne are also investigators in a Novo Nordisk trial of a new anti-inflammatory drug.

Final results of the SELECT trial have shown that the antiobesity drug semaglutide (Wegovy) produced a consistent reduction of around 20% versus placebo across major cardiovascular event endpoints over the approximately 3-year follow-up in patients with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

“This is a very exciting set of results. I think it is going to have a big impact on a large number of people,” lead investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, vice chair for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. 

“And from a scientific standpoint, these data show that we now have a new pathway or a new modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease that we can use in our patients who have overweight or obesity,” he added.

The trial involved 17,604 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or above (mean BMI was 33), who were randomly assigned to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, given by subcutaneous injection once weekly at a gradually escalating dose up to 2.4 mg daily by week 16, or placebo. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 5.8% and 66.4% of patients met the criteria for prediabetes.

Patients lost a mean of 9.4% of body weight over the first 2 years with semaglutide versus 0.88% with placebo.

The primary cardiovascular endpoint – a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke – was reduced significantly, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90; P < .001).  

Death from cardiovascular causes, the first confirmatory secondary endpoint, showed a 15% reduction (HR, 0.85; P = .07) but this missed meeting criteria for statistical significance, and because of the hierarchical design of the trial, this meant that superiority testing was not performed for the remaining confirmatory secondary endpoints.

However, results showed reductions of around 20% for the heart failure composite endpoint and for all-cause mortality, with confidence intervals that did not cross 1.0, and directionally consistent effects were observed for all supportive secondary endpoints.

The HR for the heart failure composite endpoint was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and the HR for death from any cause was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). Nonfatal MI was reduced by 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85).

The effects of semaglutide on the primary endpoint appeared to be similar across all prespecified subgroups.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 16.6% in the semaglutide group, mostly gastrointestinal effects, and in 8.2% in the placebo group.

The trial results were presented by Dr. Lincoff at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association . They were also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Lincoff explained that there is a growing pandemic of overweight and obesity worldwide with clear evidence for years that these conditions increase the risk of cardiovascular events – and yet there has been no evidence, until now, that any pharmacologic or lifestyle therapy can reduce the increased risk conferred by overweight/obesity. 

“Patients in the trial were already taking standard of care therapies for other risk factors, such as hypertension and cholesterol, so this drug is giving additional benefit,” he said.

Dr. Lincoff believes these data will lead to a large increase in use of semaglutide, which is already available for the treatment of obesity and diabetes but can be difficult to get reimbursed.

“There is a lot of difficulty getting payors to pay for this drug for weight management. But with this new data from the SELECT trial there should be more willingness – at least in the population with a history of cardiovascular disease,” he commented. In diabetes, where it is already established that there is a cardiovascular risk reduction, it is easier to get these drugs reimbursed, he noted.

On the outcome data, Dr. Lincoff said he could not explain why cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced while all-cause mortality appeared to be cut more definitively.

“The cardiovascular death curves separated, then merged, then separated again. We don’t really know what is going on there. It may be that some deaths were misclassified. This trial was conducted through the COVID era and there may have been less information available on some patients because of that.”

But he added: “The all-cause mortality is more reassuring, as it doesn’t depend on classifying cause of death. Because of the design of the trial, we can’t formally claim a reduction in all-cause mortality, but the results do suggest there is an effect on this endpoint. And all the different types of cardiovascular events were similarly reduced in a consistent way, with similar effects seen across all subgroups. That is very reassuring.”
 

‘A new era’ for patients with obesity

Outside experts in the field were also impressed with the data.

Designated discussant of the trial at the AHA meeting, Ania Jastreboff, MD, associate professor medicine (endocrinology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the SELECT trial was “a turning point in the treatment of obesity and a call to action.

“Now is the time to treat obesity to improve health outcomes in people with cardiovascular disease,” she said.

Dr. Jastreboff noted that high BMI was estimated to have accounted for 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015, two-thirds of which were caused by cardiovascular disease. And she presented data showing that U.S. individuals meeting the SELECT criteria increased from 4.3 million in 2011-12 to 6.6 million in 2017-18.

She highlighted one major limitation of the SELECT trial: it enrolled a low number of women (38%) and ethnic minorities, with only 12% of the trial population being Black.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, director of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, described the SELECT results as “altogether a compelling package of data.”

“These results are even better than I had expected,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “There is a significant reduction in MI as I had anticipated, but additionally, there is a reduction in all-cause death. One can debate the statistics, though on a common-sense level, I think it is a real finding,” he noted.

“Given that MI, heart failure, nephropathy, and revascularization are all reduced, and even stroke is numerically lower, it makes sense that all-cause mortality would be reduced,” he said. “To me, apart from the GI side effects, this counts as a home run.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic’s Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, was similarly upbeat.

“These data prove what many of us have long suspected – that losing weight can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is great news for patients living with obesity. The obesity epidemic is out of control,” he added. “We need to have therapies that improve cardiovascular outcomes caused by obesity and this shows that semaglutide can do that. I think this is the beginning of a whole new era for patients with obesity.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the results of SELECT “both intriguing and compelling. Certainly, these findings lend further support to the use of semaglutide in a much broader secondary prevention population of individuals with obesity.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, director of the center for cardiometabolic disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the SELECT study as “a landmark trial which will change the practice of medicine in regard to how we treat obesity.”

He compared it with the landmark 4S trial in 1994, the first study in the area of cholesterol lowering therapy to show a clear benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and total mortality, and “began a drastic change in the way that physicians approached treatment of cholesterol.”

On the more robust reduction in all-cause death, compared with cardiovascular death,

Dr. Ballantyne pointed out: “Adjudication of dead or alive is something that everyone gets right. In contrast, the cause of death is sometime difficult to ascertain. Most importantly, the benefit on total mortality also provides assurance that this therapy does not have some adverse effect on increasing noncardiovascular deaths.”
 

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

On the side effects seen with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff reported that 10% of patients in the semaglutide group discontinued treatment because of GI side effects versus 2% in the placebo arm. He said this was “an expected issue.”

“GI effects, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, are known side effects of this whole class of drugs. The dose is slowly escalated to manage these adverse effects but there will be a proportion of patients who can’t tolerate it, although the vast majority are able to continue.”

He noted that, while dose reduction was allowed, of the patients who were still on the drug at 2 years, 77% were on the full dose, and 23% were on a reduced dose.

Dr. Lincoff pointed out that there were no serious adverse events with semaglutide. “This is the largest database by far now on the drug with a long-term follow up and we didn’t see the emergence of any new safety signals, which is very reassuring.”  

Dr. Nissen said the 16% rate of patients stopping the drug because of tolerability “is not a trivial number.”

He noted that the semaglutide dose used in this study was larger than that used in diabetes.

“They did this to try to achieve more weight loss but then you get more issues with tolerability. It’s a trade-off. If patients are experiencing adverse effects, the dose can be reduced, but then you will lose some effect. All the GLP-1 agonists have GI side effects – it’s part of the way that they work.”
 

Just weight loss or other actions too?

Speculating on the mechanism behind the reduction in cardiovascular events with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff does not think it is just weight reduction.

“The event curves start to diverge very soon after the start of the trial and yet the maximum weight loss doesn’t occur until about 65 weeks. I think something else is going on.”

In the paper, the researchers noted that GLP-1 agonists have been shown in animal studies to reduce inflammation, improve endothelial and left ventricular function, promote plaque stability, and decrease platelet aggregation. In this trial, semaglutide was associated with changes in multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, including blood pressure, waist circumference, glycemic control, nephropathy, and levels of lipids and C-reactive protein.

Dr. Lincoff also pointed out that similar benefits were seen in patients with different levels of overweight, and in those who were prediabetic and those who weren’t, so benefit was not dependent on baseline BMI or glycated hemoglobin levels.

Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that other effects, as well as weight loss, could be involved. “The reduction in events with semaglutide appeared very early after initiation and far preceded the drug’s maximal effects on weight reduction. This might suggest that the drug offers other cardioprotective effects through pathways independent of weight loss. Certainly, semaglutide and the other GLP-1 agonists appear to attenuate inflammation, and the patterns of redistribution of adipose tissue may also be of interest.”

She also pointed out that the reduction in cardiovascular events appeared even earlier in this population of obese nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease than in prior studies of patients with diabetes. “It may suggest that there is particular benefit for this type of therapy in patients with an inflammatory milieu. I look forward to seeing further analyses to help tease apart the correlation between changes in inflammation, observed weight loss and cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Effect on clinical practice

With the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease being overweight, these results are obviously going to increase demand for semaglutide, but cost and availability are going to be an issue.

Dr. Bhatt noted that semaglutide is already very popular. “Weight loss drugs are somewhat different from other medications. I can spend 30 minutes trying to convince a patient to take a statin, but here people realize it’s going to cause weight loss and they come in asking for it even if they don’t strictly need it. I think it’s good to have cardiovascular outcome data because now at least for this population of patients, we have evidence to prescribe it.”

He agreed with Dr. Lincoff that these new data should encourage insurance companies to cover the drug, because in reducing cardiovascular events it should also improve downstream health care costs.

“It is providing clear cardiovascular and kidney benefit, so it is in the best interest to the health care system to fund this drug,” he said. “I hope insurers look at it rationally in this way, but they may also be frightened of the explosion of patients wanting this drug and now doctors wanting to prescribe it and how that would affect their shorter-term costs.”

Dr. Lincoff said it would not be easy to prioritize certain groups. “We couldn’t identify any subgroup who showed particularly more benefit than any others. But in the evolution of any therapy, there is a time period where it is in short supply and prohibitively expensive, then over time when there is some competition and pricing deals occur as more people are advocating for it, they become more available.”
 

‘A welcome treatment option’

In an editorial accompanying publication of the trial, Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, noted that baseline risk factors such as LDL cholesterol (78 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure (131 mm Hg) were not ideal in the semaglutide group in this trial, and they suggest that the benefits of semaglutide may be attenuated when these measures are better controlled.

But given that more than 20 million people in the United States have coronary artery disease, with the majority having overweight or obesity and only approximately 30% having concomitant diabetes, they said that, even in the context of well-controlled risk factors and very low LDL cholesterol levels, the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in these persons is unacceptably high. “Thus, the SELECT trial provides a welcome treatment option that can be extended to millions of additional patients.”

However, the editorialists cautioned that semaglutide at current pricing comes with a significant cost to both patients and society, which makes this treatment inaccessible for many. 

They added that intensive lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery remain effective but underutilized options for obesity, and that the prevention of obesity before it develops should be the primary goal.

The SELECT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Lincoff is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Nissen are involved in a cardiovascular outcomes trial with a new investigational weight loss drug from Lilly. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Ballantyne are also investigators in a Novo Nordisk trial of a new anti-inflammatory drug.

Final results of the SELECT trial have shown that the antiobesity drug semaglutide (Wegovy) produced a consistent reduction of around 20% versus placebo across major cardiovascular event endpoints over the approximately 3-year follow-up in patients with overweight or obesity and cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

“This is a very exciting set of results. I think it is going to have a big impact on a large number of people,” lead investigator A. Michael Lincoff, MD, vice chair for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. 

“And from a scientific standpoint, these data show that we now have a new pathway or a new modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease that we can use in our patients who have overweight or obesity,” he added.

The trial involved 17,604 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and a body mass index of 27 kg/m² or above (mean BMI was 33), who were randomly assigned to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, given by subcutaneous injection once weekly at a gradually escalating dose up to 2.4 mg daily by week 16, or placebo. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 5.8% and 66.4% of patients met the criteria for prediabetes.

Patients lost a mean of 9.4% of body weight over the first 2 years with semaglutide versus 0.88% with placebo.

The primary cardiovascular endpoint – a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke – was reduced significantly, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90; P < .001).  

Death from cardiovascular causes, the first confirmatory secondary endpoint, showed a 15% reduction (HR, 0.85; P = .07) but this missed meeting criteria for statistical significance, and because of the hierarchical design of the trial, this meant that superiority testing was not performed for the remaining confirmatory secondary endpoints.

However, results showed reductions of around 20% for the heart failure composite endpoint and for all-cause mortality, with confidence intervals that did not cross 1.0, and directionally consistent effects were observed for all supportive secondary endpoints.

The HR for the heart failure composite endpoint was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96), and the HR for death from any cause was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). Nonfatal MI was reduced by 28% (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85).

The effects of semaglutide on the primary endpoint appeared to be similar across all prespecified subgroups.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment occurred in 16.6% in the semaglutide group, mostly gastrointestinal effects, and in 8.2% in the placebo group.

The trial results were presented by Dr. Lincoff at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association . They were also simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Lincoff explained that there is a growing pandemic of overweight and obesity worldwide with clear evidence for years that these conditions increase the risk of cardiovascular events – and yet there has been no evidence, until now, that any pharmacologic or lifestyle therapy can reduce the increased risk conferred by overweight/obesity. 

“Patients in the trial were already taking standard of care therapies for other risk factors, such as hypertension and cholesterol, so this drug is giving additional benefit,” he said.

Dr. Lincoff believes these data will lead to a large increase in use of semaglutide, which is already available for the treatment of obesity and diabetes but can be difficult to get reimbursed.

“There is a lot of difficulty getting payors to pay for this drug for weight management. But with this new data from the SELECT trial there should be more willingness – at least in the population with a history of cardiovascular disease,” he commented. In diabetes, where it is already established that there is a cardiovascular risk reduction, it is easier to get these drugs reimbursed, he noted.

On the outcome data, Dr. Lincoff said he could not explain why cardiovascular death was not significantly reduced while all-cause mortality appeared to be cut more definitively.

“The cardiovascular death curves separated, then merged, then separated again. We don’t really know what is going on there. It may be that some deaths were misclassified. This trial was conducted through the COVID era and there may have been less information available on some patients because of that.”

But he added: “The all-cause mortality is more reassuring, as it doesn’t depend on classifying cause of death. Because of the design of the trial, we can’t formally claim a reduction in all-cause mortality, but the results do suggest there is an effect on this endpoint. And all the different types of cardiovascular events were similarly reduced in a consistent way, with similar effects seen across all subgroups. That is very reassuring.”
 

‘A new era’ for patients with obesity

Outside experts in the field were also impressed with the data.

Designated discussant of the trial at the AHA meeting, Ania Jastreboff, MD, associate professor medicine (endocrinology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the SELECT trial was “a turning point in the treatment of obesity and a call to action.

“Now is the time to treat obesity to improve health outcomes in people with cardiovascular disease,” she said.

Dr. Jastreboff noted that high BMI was estimated to have accounted for 4 million deaths worldwide in 2015, two-thirds of which were caused by cardiovascular disease. And she presented data showing that U.S. individuals meeting the SELECT criteria increased from 4.3 million in 2011-12 to 6.6 million in 2017-18.

She highlighted one major limitation of the SELECT trial: it enrolled a low number of women (38%) and ethnic minorities, with only 12% of the trial population being Black.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, director of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, New York, described the SELECT results as “altogether a compelling package of data.”

“These results are even better than I had expected,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “There is a significant reduction in MI as I had anticipated, but additionally, there is a reduction in all-cause death. One can debate the statistics, though on a common-sense level, I think it is a real finding,” he noted.

“Given that MI, heart failure, nephropathy, and revascularization are all reduced, and even stroke is numerically lower, it makes sense that all-cause mortality would be reduced,” he said. “To me, apart from the GI side effects, this counts as a home run.”

Steve Nissen, MD, chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic’s Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, was similarly upbeat.

“These data prove what many of us have long suspected – that losing weight can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This is great news for patients living with obesity. The obesity epidemic is out of control,” he added. “We need to have therapies that improve cardiovascular outcomes caused by obesity and this shows that semaglutide can do that. I think this is the beginning of a whole new era for patients with obesity.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called the results of SELECT “both intriguing and compelling. Certainly, these findings lend further support to the use of semaglutide in a much broader secondary prevention population of individuals with obesity.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, director of the center for cardiometabolic disease prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, described the SELECT study as “a landmark trial which will change the practice of medicine in regard to how we treat obesity.”

He compared it with the landmark 4S trial in 1994, the first study in the area of cholesterol lowering therapy to show a clear benefit in reducing cardiovascular events and total mortality, and “began a drastic change in the way that physicians approached treatment of cholesterol.”

On the more robust reduction in all-cause death, compared with cardiovascular death,

Dr. Ballantyne pointed out: “Adjudication of dead or alive is something that everyone gets right. In contrast, the cause of death is sometime difficult to ascertain. Most importantly, the benefit on total mortality also provides assurance that this therapy does not have some adverse effect on increasing noncardiovascular deaths.”
 

Gastrointestinal adverse effects

On the side effects seen with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff reported that 10% of patients in the semaglutide group discontinued treatment because of GI side effects versus 2% in the placebo arm. He said this was “an expected issue.”

“GI effects, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, are known side effects of this whole class of drugs. The dose is slowly escalated to manage these adverse effects but there will be a proportion of patients who can’t tolerate it, although the vast majority are able to continue.”

He noted that, while dose reduction was allowed, of the patients who were still on the drug at 2 years, 77% were on the full dose, and 23% were on a reduced dose.

Dr. Lincoff pointed out that there were no serious adverse events with semaglutide. “This is the largest database by far now on the drug with a long-term follow up and we didn’t see the emergence of any new safety signals, which is very reassuring.”  

Dr. Nissen said the 16% rate of patients stopping the drug because of tolerability “is not a trivial number.”

He noted that the semaglutide dose used in this study was larger than that used in diabetes.

“They did this to try to achieve more weight loss but then you get more issues with tolerability. It’s a trade-off. If patients are experiencing adverse effects, the dose can be reduced, but then you will lose some effect. All the GLP-1 agonists have GI side effects – it’s part of the way that they work.”
 

Just weight loss or other actions too?

Speculating on the mechanism behind the reduction in cardiovascular events with semaglutide, Dr. Lincoff does not think it is just weight reduction.

“The event curves start to diverge very soon after the start of the trial and yet the maximum weight loss doesn’t occur until about 65 weeks. I think something else is going on.”

In the paper, the researchers noted that GLP-1 agonists have been shown in animal studies to reduce inflammation, improve endothelial and left ventricular function, promote plaque stability, and decrease platelet aggregation. In this trial, semaglutide was associated with changes in multiple biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, including blood pressure, waist circumference, glycemic control, nephropathy, and levels of lipids and C-reactive protein.

Dr. Lincoff also pointed out that similar benefits were seen in patients with different levels of overweight, and in those who were prediabetic and those who weren’t, so benefit was not dependent on baseline BMI or glycated hemoglobin levels.

Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that other effects, as well as weight loss, could be involved. “The reduction in events with semaglutide appeared very early after initiation and far preceded the drug’s maximal effects on weight reduction. This might suggest that the drug offers other cardioprotective effects through pathways independent of weight loss. Certainly, semaglutide and the other GLP-1 agonists appear to attenuate inflammation, and the patterns of redistribution of adipose tissue may also be of interest.”

She also pointed out that the reduction in cardiovascular events appeared even earlier in this population of obese nondiabetic patients with cardiovascular disease than in prior studies of patients with diabetes. “It may suggest that there is particular benefit for this type of therapy in patients with an inflammatory milieu. I look forward to seeing further analyses to help tease apart the correlation between changes in inflammation, observed weight loss and cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Effect on clinical practice

With the majority of patients with cardiovascular disease being overweight, these results are obviously going to increase demand for semaglutide, but cost and availability are going to be an issue.

Dr. Bhatt noted that semaglutide is already very popular. “Weight loss drugs are somewhat different from other medications. I can spend 30 minutes trying to convince a patient to take a statin, but here people realize it’s going to cause weight loss and they come in asking for it even if they don’t strictly need it. I think it’s good to have cardiovascular outcome data because now at least for this population of patients, we have evidence to prescribe it.”

He agreed with Dr. Lincoff that these new data should encourage insurance companies to cover the drug, because in reducing cardiovascular events it should also improve downstream health care costs.

“It is providing clear cardiovascular and kidney benefit, so it is in the best interest to the health care system to fund this drug,” he said. “I hope insurers look at it rationally in this way, but they may also be frightened of the explosion of patients wanting this drug and now doctors wanting to prescribe it and how that would affect their shorter-term costs.”

Dr. Lincoff said it would not be easy to prioritize certain groups. “We couldn’t identify any subgroup who showed particularly more benefit than any others. But in the evolution of any therapy, there is a time period where it is in short supply and prohibitively expensive, then over time when there is some competition and pricing deals occur as more people are advocating for it, they become more available.”
 

‘A welcome treatment option’

In an editorial accompanying publication of the trial, Amit Khera, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, MPH, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, noted that baseline risk factors such as LDL cholesterol (78 mg/dL) and systolic blood pressure (131 mm Hg) were not ideal in the semaglutide group in this trial, and they suggest that the benefits of semaglutide may be attenuated when these measures are better controlled.

But given that more than 20 million people in the United States have coronary artery disease, with the majority having overweight or obesity and only approximately 30% having concomitant diabetes, they said that, even in the context of well-controlled risk factors and very low LDL cholesterol levels, the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in these persons is unacceptably high. “Thus, the SELECT trial provides a welcome treatment option that can be extended to millions of additional patients.”

However, the editorialists cautioned that semaglutide at current pricing comes with a significant cost to both patients and society, which makes this treatment inaccessible for many. 

They added that intensive lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery remain effective but underutilized options for obesity, and that the prevention of obesity before it develops should be the primary goal.

The SELECT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk, and several coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Lincoff is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Nissen are involved in a cardiovascular outcomes trial with a new investigational weight loss drug from Lilly. Dr. Bhatt and Dr. Ballantyne are also investigators in a Novo Nordisk trial of a new anti-inflammatory drug.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – A proprietary formula showed good performance stratifying the risk of adults with early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) advancing to more severe kidney dysfunction and increased health care needs. The analyses offer the possibility of focusing intensified medical management of early-stage CKD on those patients who could potentially receive the most benefit.

The Klinrisk model predicts the risk of an adult with early-stage CKD developing either a 40% or greater drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate or kidney failure. It calculates risk based on 20 lab-measured variables that include serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and other values taken from routinely ordered tests such as complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In the most recent and largest external validation study using data from 4.6 million American adults enrolled in commercial and Medicare insurance plans, the results showed Klinrisk correctly predicted CKD progression in 80%-83% of individuals over 2 years and in 78%-83% of individuals over 5 years, depending on the insurance provider, Navdeep Tangri, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. When urinalysis data were available, the model correctly predicted CKD progression in 81%-87% of individuals over 2 years and in 80%-87% of individuals over 5 years. These results follow prior reports of several other successful validations of Klinrisk.
 

‘Ready to implement’

“The Klinrisk model is ready to implement by any payer, health system, or clinic where the needed lab data are available,” said Dr. Tangri, a nephrologist and professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and founder of Klinrisk Inc., the company developing and commercializing the Klinrisk assessment tool.

For the time being, Dr. Tangri sees Klinrisk as a population health device that can allow insurers and health systems to track management quality and quality improvement and to target patients who stand to benefit most from relatively expensive resources. This includes prescriptions for finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) for people who also have type 2 diabetes, and agents from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors such as dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly).

He has also begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about the data the agency will need to consider Klinrisk for potential approval as a new medical device, perhaps in 2025. That’s how he envisions getting a Klinrisk assessment into the hands of caregivers that they could use with individual patients to create an appropriate treatment plan.

Results from his new analysis showed that “all the kidney disease action is in the 10%-20% of people with the highest risk on Klinrisk, while not much happens in those in the bottom half,” Dr. Tangri said during his presentation.

“We’re trying to find the patients who get the largest [absolute] benefit from intensified treatment,” he added in an interview. “Klinrisk finds people with high-risk kidney disease early on, when kidney function is still normal or near normal. High-risk patients are often completely unrecognized. Risk-based management” that identifies the early-stage CKD patients who would benefit most from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone, and other foundational treatments to slow CKD progression “is better than the free-for-all that occurs today.”

Simplified data collection

“Klinrisk is very effective,” but requires follow-up by clinicians and health systems to implement its findings, commented Josef Coresh, MD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore. Dr. Coresh compared it with a free equation that estimates a person’s risk for a 40% drop in kidney function over the next 3 years developed by Dr. Tangri, Dr. Coresh, and many collaborators led by Morgan C. Grams, MD, PhD, of New York University that they published in 2022, and posted on a website of the CKD Prognosis Consortium.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD Prognosis Consortium formula “takes a different approach” from Klinrisk. The commercial formula “is simpler, only using lab measures, and avoids inputs taken from physical examination such as systolic blood pressure and body mass index and health history data such as smoking, noted Dr. Coresh. He also speculated that “a commercial formula that must be paid for may counterintuitively result in better follow-up for making management changes if it uses some of the resources for education and system changes.”

Using data from multiple sources, like the CKD Prognosis Consortium equation, can create implementation challenges, said Dr. Tangri. “Lab results don’t vary much,” which makes Klinrisk “quite an improvement for implementation. It’s easier to implement.”

Other findings from the newest validation study that Dr. Tangri presented were that the people studied with Klinrisk scores in the top 10% had, over the next 2 years of follow-up and compared with people in the bottom half for Klinrisk staging, a 3- to 5-fold higher rate of all-cause medical costs, a 13-30-fold increase in CKD-related costs, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in hospitalizations and ED visits.

Early identification of CKD and early initiation of intensified treatment for high-risk patients can reduce the rate of progression to dialysis, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and lower the cost of care, Dr. Tangri said.

The validation study in 4.6 million Americans was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Tangri founded and has an ownership interest in Klinrisk. He has also received honoraria from, has ownership interests in, and has been a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Coresh had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – A proprietary formula showed good performance stratifying the risk of adults with early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) advancing to more severe kidney dysfunction and increased health care needs. The analyses offer the possibility of focusing intensified medical management of early-stage CKD on those patients who could potentially receive the most benefit.

The Klinrisk model predicts the risk of an adult with early-stage CKD developing either a 40% or greater drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate or kidney failure. It calculates risk based on 20 lab-measured variables that include serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and other values taken from routinely ordered tests such as complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In the most recent and largest external validation study using data from 4.6 million American adults enrolled in commercial and Medicare insurance plans, the results showed Klinrisk correctly predicted CKD progression in 80%-83% of individuals over 2 years and in 78%-83% of individuals over 5 years, depending on the insurance provider, Navdeep Tangri, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. When urinalysis data were available, the model correctly predicted CKD progression in 81%-87% of individuals over 2 years and in 80%-87% of individuals over 5 years. These results follow prior reports of several other successful validations of Klinrisk.
 

‘Ready to implement’

“The Klinrisk model is ready to implement by any payer, health system, or clinic where the needed lab data are available,” said Dr. Tangri, a nephrologist and professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and founder of Klinrisk Inc., the company developing and commercializing the Klinrisk assessment tool.

For the time being, Dr. Tangri sees Klinrisk as a population health device that can allow insurers and health systems to track management quality and quality improvement and to target patients who stand to benefit most from relatively expensive resources. This includes prescriptions for finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) for people who also have type 2 diabetes, and agents from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors such as dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly).

He has also begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about the data the agency will need to consider Klinrisk for potential approval as a new medical device, perhaps in 2025. That’s how he envisions getting a Klinrisk assessment into the hands of caregivers that they could use with individual patients to create an appropriate treatment plan.

Results from his new analysis showed that “all the kidney disease action is in the 10%-20% of people with the highest risk on Klinrisk, while not much happens in those in the bottom half,” Dr. Tangri said during his presentation.

“We’re trying to find the patients who get the largest [absolute] benefit from intensified treatment,” he added in an interview. “Klinrisk finds people with high-risk kidney disease early on, when kidney function is still normal or near normal. High-risk patients are often completely unrecognized. Risk-based management” that identifies the early-stage CKD patients who would benefit most from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone, and other foundational treatments to slow CKD progression “is better than the free-for-all that occurs today.”

Simplified data collection

“Klinrisk is very effective,” but requires follow-up by clinicians and health systems to implement its findings, commented Josef Coresh, MD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore. Dr. Coresh compared it with a free equation that estimates a person’s risk for a 40% drop in kidney function over the next 3 years developed by Dr. Tangri, Dr. Coresh, and many collaborators led by Morgan C. Grams, MD, PhD, of New York University that they published in 2022, and posted on a website of the CKD Prognosis Consortium.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD Prognosis Consortium formula “takes a different approach” from Klinrisk. The commercial formula “is simpler, only using lab measures, and avoids inputs taken from physical examination such as systolic blood pressure and body mass index and health history data such as smoking, noted Dr. Coresh. He also speculated that “a commercial formula that must be paid for may counterintuitively result in better follow-up for making management changes if it uses some of the resources for education and system changes.”

Using data from multiple sources, like the CKD Prognosis Consortium equation, can create implementation challenges, said Dr. Tangri. “Lab results don’t vary much,” which makes Klinrisk “quite an improvement for implementation. It’s easier to implement.”

Other findings from the newest validation study that Dr. Tangri presented were that the people studied with Klinrisk scores in the top 10% had, over the next 2 years of follow-up and compared with people in the bottom half for Klinrisk staging, a 3- to 5-fold higher rate of all-cause medical costs, a 13-30-fold increase in CKD-related costs, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in hospitalizations and ED visits.

Early identification of CKD and early initiation of intensified treatment for high-risk patients can reduce the rate of progression to dialysis, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and lower the cost of care, Dr. Tangri said.

The validation study in 4.6 million Americans was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Tangri founded and has an ownership interest in Klinrisk. He has also received honoraria from, has ownership interests in, and has been a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Coresh had no disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – A proprietary formula showed good performance stratifying the risk of adults with early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) advancing to more severe kidney dysfunction and increased health care needs. The analyses offer the possibility of focusing intensified medical management of early-stage CKD on those patients who could potentially receive the most benefit.

The Klinrisk model predicts the risk of an adult with early-stage CKD developing either a 40% or greater drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate or kidney failure. It calculates risk based on 20 lab-measured variables that include serum creatinine, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and other values taken from routinely ordered tests such as complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In the most recent and largest external validation study using data from 4.6 million American adults enrolled in commercial and Medicare insurance plans, the results showed Klinrisk correctly predicted CKD progression in 80%-83% of individuals over 2 years and in 78%-83% of individuals over 5 years, depending on the insurance provider, Navdeep Tangri, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. When urinalysis data were available, the model correctly predicted CKD progression in 81%-87% of individuals over 2 years and in 80%-87% of individuals over 5 years. These results follow prior reports of several other successful validations of Klinrisk.
 

‘Ready to implement’

“The Klinrisk model is ready to implement by any payer, health system, or clinic where the needed lab data are available,” said Dr. Tangri, a nephrologist and professor at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, and founder of Klinrisk Inc., the company developing and commercializing the Klinrisk assessment tool.

For the time being, Dr. Tangri sees Klinrisk as a population health device that can allow insurers and health systems to track management quality and quality improvement and to target patients who stand to benefit most from relatively expensive resources. This includes prescriptions for finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) for people who also have type 2 diabetes, and agents from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors such as dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly).

He has also begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about the data the agency will need to consider Klinrisk for potential approval as a new medical device, perhaps in 2025. That’s how he envisions getting a Klinrisk assessment into the hands of caregivers that they could use with individual patients to create an appropriate treatment plan.

Results from his new analysis showed that “all the kidney disease action is in the 10%-20% of people with the highest risk on Klinrisk, while not much happens in those in the bottom half,” Dr. Tangri said during his presentation.

“We’re trying to find the patients who get the largest [absolute] benefit from intensified treatment,” he added in an interview. “Klinrisk finds people with high-risk kidney disease early on, when kidney function is still normal or near normal. High-risk patients are often completely unrecognized. Risk-based management” that identifies the early-stage CKD patients who would benefit most from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, finerenone, and other foundational treatments to slow CKD progression “is better than the free-for-all that occurs today.”

Simplified data collection

“Klinrisk is very effective,” but requires follow-up by clinicians and health systems to implement its findings, commented Josef Coresh, MD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore. Dr. Coresh compared it with a free equation that estimates a person’s risk for a 40% drop in kidney function over the next 3 years developed by Dr. Tangri, Dr. Coresh, and many collaborators led by Morgan C. Grams, MD, PhD, of New York University that they published in 2022, and posted on a website of the CKD Prognosis Consortium.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The CKD Prognosis Consortium formula “takes a different approach” from Klinrisk. The commercial formula “is simpler, only using lab measures, and avoids inputs taken from physical examination such as systolic blood pressure and body mass index and health history data such as smoking, noted Dr. Coresh. He also speculated that “a commercial formula that must be paid for may counterintuitively result in better follow-up for making management changes if it uses some of the resources for education and system changes.”

Using data from multiple sources, like the CKD Prognosis Consortium equation, can create implementation challenges, said Dr. Tangri. “Lab results don’t vary much,” which makes Klinrisk “quite an improvement for implementation. It’s easier to implement.”

Other findings from the newest validation study that Dr. Tangri presented were that the people studied with Klinrisk scores in the top 10% had, over the next 2 years of follow-up and compared with people in the bottom half for Klinrisk staging, a 3- to 5-fold higher rate of all-cause medical costs, a 13-30-fold increase in CKD-related costs, and a 5- to 10-fold increase in hospitalizations and ED visits.

Early identification of CKD and early initiation of intensified treatment for high-risk patients can reduce the rate of progression to dialysis, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and lower the cost of care, Dr. Tangri said.

The validation study in 4.6 million Americans was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Tangri founded and has an ownership interest in Klinrisk. He has also received honoraria from, has ownership interests in, and has been a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Coresh had no disclosures.

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


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

TOPLINE:

Obtaining standing office blood pressure measurements improves detection of hypertension, either alone or when added to a seated BP reading, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 125 adults, mean age 49 years and 62% female, who were free of cardiovascular disease and had no previous history of hypertension.
• Researchers collected data on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and three BP measurements in the seated position, then three in the standing position.
• They assessed overall diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and considered a Bayes factor (BF) of 3 or greater as significant.
• They defined the presence of hypertension (HTN) by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2023 European Society of Hypertension HTN guidelines based on ABPM.
• Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cutoffs derived from Youden index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cutoff of 130/80 mm Hg and by 140/90 mm Hg.

TAKEAWAY:

• The AUROC for standing office systolic blood pressure (SBP; 0.81; 0.71-0.92) was significantly higher than for seated office SBP (0.70; 0.49-0.91) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg (BF = 11.8), and significantly higher for seated versus standing office diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 0.65; 0.49-0.82) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg (BF = 4.9).
• The AUROCs for adding standing office BP to seated office BP improved the accuracy of detecting HTN, compared with seated office BP alone when HTN was defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, or when defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg (all BFs > 3).
• Sensitivity of standing SBP was 71%, compared with 43% for seated SBP.

IN PRACTICE:

The “excellent diagnostic performance” for standing BP measures revealed by the study “highlights that standing office BP has acceptable discriminative capabilities in identifying the presence of hypertension in adults,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by John M. Giacona, Hypertension Section, department of internal medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study enrolled only adults free of comorbidities who were not taking antihypertensive medications, the results may not be applicable to other patients. The study design was retrospective, and the order of BP measurements was not randomized (standing BP measurements were obtained only after seated BP).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obtaining standing office blood pressure measurements improves detection of hypertension, either alone or when added to a seated BP reading, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 125 adults, mean age 49 years and 62% female, who were free of cardiovascular disease and had no previous history of hypertension.
• Researchers collected data on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and three BP measurements in the seated position, then three in the standing position.
• They assessed overall diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and considered a Bayes factor (BF) of 3 or greater as significant.
• They defined the presence of hypertension (HTN) by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2023 European Society of Hypertension HTN guidelines based on ABPM.
• Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cutoffs derived from Youden index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cutoff of 130/80 mm Hg and by 140/90 mm Hg.

TAKEAWAY:

• The AUROC for standing office systolic blood pressure (SBP; 0.81; 0.71-0.92) was significantly higher than for seated office SBP (0.70; 0.49-0.91) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg (BF = 11.8), and significantly higher for seated versus standing office diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 0.65; 0.49-0.82) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg (BF = 4.9).
• The AUROCs for adding standing office BP to seated office BP improved the accuracy of detecting HTN, compared with seated office BP alone when HTN was defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, or when defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg (all BFs > 3).
• Sensitivity of standing SBP was 71%, compared with 43% for seated SBP.

IN PRACTICE:

The “excellent diagnostic performance” for standing BP measures revealed by the study “highlights that standing office BP has acceptable discriminative capabilities in identifying the presence of hypertension in adults,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by John M. Giacona, Hypertension Section, department of internal medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study enrolled only adults free of comorbidities who were not taking antihypertensive medications, the results may not be applicable to other patients. The study design was retrospective, and the order of BP measurements was not randomized (standing BP measurements were obtained only after seated BP).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obtaining standing office blood pressure measurements improves detection of hypertension, either alone or when added to a seated BP reading, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 125 adults, mean age 49 years and 62% female, who were free of cardiovascular disease and had no previous history of hypertension.
• Researchers collected data on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and three BP measurements in the seated position, then three in the standing position.
• They assessed overall diagnostic accuracy of seated and standing BP using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and considered a Bayes factor (BF) of 3 or greater as significant.
• They defined the presence of hypertension (HTN) by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2023 European Society of Hypertension HTN guidelines based on ABPM.
• Sensitivity and specificity of standing BP was determined using cutoffs derived from Youden index, while sensitivity and specificity of seated BP was determined using the cutoff of 130/80 mm Hg and by 140/90 mm Hg.

TAKEAWAY:

• The AUROC for standing office systolic blood pressure (SBP; 0.81; 0.71-0.92) was significantly higher than for seated office SBP (0.70; 0.49-0.91) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg (BF = 11.8), and significantly higher for seated versus standing office diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 0.65; 0.49-0.82) in diagnosing HTN when defined as an average 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg (BF = 4.9).
• The AUROCs for adding standing office BP to seated office BP improved the accuracy of detecting HTN, compared with seated office BP alone when HTN was defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg, or when defined as an average 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg (all BFs > 3).
• Sensitivity of standing SBP was 71%, compared with 43% for seated SBP.

IN PRACTICE:

The “excellent diagnostic performance” for standing BP measures revealed by the study “highlights that standing office BP has acceptable discriminative capabilities in identifying the presence of hypertension in adults,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by John M. Giacona, Hypertension Section, department of internal medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and colleagues. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study enrolled only adults free of comorbidities who were not taking antihypertensive medications, the results may not be applicable to other patients. The study design was retrospective, and the order of BP measurements was not randomized (standing BP measurements were obtained only after seated BP).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The current highly effective antiobesity medications approved for treating obesity (semaglutide), under review (tirzepatide), or in late-stage clinical trials “appear to lower the body’s target and defended fat mass [set point]” but do not permanently fix it at a lower point, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, explained in a lecture during the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

It is very likely that patients with obesity will have to take these antiobesity medications “forever,” he said, “until we identify and can repair the cellular and molecular mechanisms that the body uses to regulate body fat mass throughout the life cycle and that are dysfunctional in obesity.”

“The body is able to regulate fat mass at multiple stages during development,” Dr. Kaplan, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, explained, “and when it doesn’t do it appropriately, that becomes the physiological basis of obesity.”

The loss of baby fat, as well as fat changes during puberty, menopause, aging, and, in particular, during and after pregnancy, “all occur without conscious or purposeful input,” he noted.

The body uses food intake and energy expenditure to reach and defend its intended fat mass, and there is an evolutionary benefit to doing this.

For example, people recovering from an acute illness can regain the lost fat and weight. A woman can support a pregnancy and lactation by increasing fat mass.

However, “the idea that [with antiobesity medications] we should be aiming for a fixed lower amount of fat is probably not a good idea.” Dr. Kaplan cautioned. “These medications change [the defended fat mass] to something that is more normal, rather than ‘fixing’ it.”

People need the flexibility to recover lost fat and weight after an acute illness or injury, and pregnant women need to gain an appropriate amount of body fat to support pregnancy and lactation.
 

Intermittent therapy: A practical strategy?

The long-term benefit of antiobesity medications requires continuous use, Dr. Kaplan noted. For example, in the STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in patients with obesity and without diabetes, when treatment was stopped at 68 weeks, average weight increased through 120 weeks, although it did not return to baseline levels.

Intermittent antiobesity therapy may be an effective, “very practical strategy” to maintain weight loss, which would also “address current challenges of high cost, limited drug availability, and inadequate access to care.”

“Until we have strategies for decreasing the cost of effective obesity treatment, and ensuring more equitable access to obesity care,” Dr. Kaplan said, “optimizing algorithms for the use of intermittent therapy may be an effective stopgap measure.”

Dr. Kaplan is or has recently been a paid consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and multiple pharmaceutical companies developing antiobesity medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The current highly effective antiobesity medications approved for treating obesity (semaglutide), under review (tirzepatide), or in late-stage clinical trials “appear to lower the body’s target and defended fat mass [set point]” but do not permanently fix it at a lower point, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, explained in a lecture during the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

It is very likely that patients with obesity will have to take these antiobesity medications “forever,” he said, “until we identify and can repair the cellular and molecular mechanisms that the body uses to regulate body fat mass throughout the life cycle and that are dysfunctional in obesity.”

“The body is able to regulate fat mass at multiple stages during development,” Dr. Kaplan, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, explained, “and when it doesn’t do it appropriately, that becomes the physiological basis of obesity.”

The loss of baby fat, as well as fat changes during puberty, menopause, aging, and, in particular, during and after pregnancy, “all occur without conscious or purposeful input,” he noted.

The body uses food intake and energy expenditure to reach and defend its intended fat mass, and there is an evolutionary benefit to doing this.

For example, people recovering from an acute illness can regain the lost fat and weight. A woman can support a pregnancy and lactation by increasing fat mass.

However, “the idea that [with antiobesity medications] we should be aiming for a fixed lower amount of fat is probably not a good idea.” Dr. Kaplan cautioned. “These medications change [the defended fat mass] to something that is more normal, rather than ‘fixing’ it.”

People need the flexibility to recover lost fat and weight after an acute illness or injury, and pregnant women need to gain an appropriate amount of body fat to support pregnancy and lactation.
 

Intermittent therapy: A practical strategy?

The long-term benefit of antiobesity medications requires continuous use, Dr. Kaplan noted. For example, in the STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in patients with obesity and without diabetes, when treatment was stopped at 68 weeks, average weight increased through 120 weeks, although it did not return to baseline levels.

Intermittent antiobesity therapy may be an effective, “very practical strategy” to maintain weight loss, which would also “address current challenges of high cost, limited drug availability, and inadequate access to care.”

“Until we have strategies for decreasing the cost of effective obesity treatment, and ensuring more equitable access to obesity care,” Dr. Kaplan said, “optimizing algorithms for the use of intermittent therapy may be an effective stopgap measure.”

Dr. Kaplan is or has recently been a paid consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and multiple pharmaceutical companies developing antiobesity medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The current highly effective antiobesity medications approved for treating obesity (semaglutide), under review (tirzepatide), or in late-stage clinical trials “appear to lower the body’s target and defended fat mass [set point]” but do not permanently fix it at a lower point, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, explained in a lecture during the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

It is very likely that patients with obesity will have to take these antiobesity medications “forever,” he said, “until we identify and can repair the cellular and molecular mechanisms that the body uses to regulate body fat mass throughout the life cycle and that are dysfunctional in obesity.”

“The body is able to regulate fat mass at multiple stages during development,” Dr. Kaplan, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, explained, “and when it doesn’t do it appropriately, that becomes the physiological basis of obesity.”

The loss of baby fat, as well as fat changes during puberty, menopause, aging, and, in particular, during and after pregnancy, “all occur without conscious or purposeful input,” he noted.

The body uses food intake and energy expenditure to reach and defend its intended fat mass, and there is an evolutionary benefit to doing this.

For example, people recovering from an acute illness can regain the lost fat and weight. A woman can support a pregnancy and lactation by increasing fat mass.

However, “the idea that [with antiobesity medications] we should be aiming for a fixed lower amount of fat is probably not a good idea.” Dr. Kaplan cautioned. “These medications change [the defended fat mass] to something that is more normal, rather than ‘fixing’ it.”

People need the flexibility to recover lost fat and weight after an acute illness or injury, and pregnant women need to gain an appropriate amount of body fat to support pregnancy and lactation.
 

Intermittent therapy: A practical strategy?

The long-term benefit of antiobesity medications requires continuous use, Dr. Kaplan noted. For example, in the STEP 1 trial of semaglutide in patients with obesity and without diabetes, when treatment was stopped at 68 weeks, average weight increased through 120 weeks, although it did not return to baseline levels.

Intermittent antiobesity therapy may be an effective, “very practical strategy” to maintain weight loss, which would also “address current challenges of high cost, limited drug availability, and inadequate access to care.”

“Until we have strategies for decreasing the cost of effective obesity treatment, and ensuring more equitable access to obesity care,” Dr. Kaplan said, “optimizing algorithms for the use of intermittent therapy may be an effective stopgap measure.”

Dr. Kaplan is or has recently been a paid consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and multiple pharmaceutical companies developing antiobesity medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.