User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
ALL: What Prompts A Post-Childhood ‘Survival Cliff’?
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.
Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”
In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?
As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.
Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).
CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”
However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.
Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.
As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”
However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.
Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.
Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.
As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.
University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.
Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.
Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.
Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.
Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
Alzheimer’s and Epilepsy: Can Shared Molecular Mechanisms Reveal New Opportunities for Epilepsy?
ORLANDO — “,” said Delia Marias Talos, MD, at a session of the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES).
A Closer Look at the Brain
“Phosphorylated tau correlates with cognitive function and executive function recorded presurgery, but it looks like the generative changes are more associated with temporal lobe and aging.”
Alzheimer’s disease is a degenerative condition marked by progressive memory deficits and cognitive decline noted by amyloid plaques and a formation of neurofibrillary tangles resulting from tau hyperphosphorylation.
Epilepsy, on the other hand, is a multifactorial condition with causes ranging from metabolic disorders, structural defects, infections, genetic mutations, and autoimmune disorders. In addition, nearly 50% of all epileptic seizures are idiopathic in nature.
Dr. Talos, professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania Perlman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, and her team did not see neurofibrillary tangles in the presurgical brains of epilepsy patients they studied; however, they saw tau plaques. In the future, they seek to investigate the features that distinguish epilepsy from Alzheimer’s disease.
Toxic fragments are probably there because amyloid precursor protein is highly upregulated, she told conference attendees. “We hypothesized that amyloid plaque is cleared but not impaired in epilepsy.”
The prognosis looks comparatively worse for patients who have Alzheimer’s disease and comorbid epilepsy than for patients who have only epilepsy. In addition, Dr. Talos stated that seizures appear to have an additive effort on Alzheimer’s disease.
Fyn-disruptive Therapy
Marson Putra, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist and postdoctoral researcher at Iowa State in Ames, Iowa, presented on the potential impact of a novel fyn-tau interaction as an unexplored target for epileptogensis and epilepsy.
Dr. Putra studied whether fyn-tau interactions exist in epilepsy. In both Alzheimer’s disease and epilepsy, Fyn belongs to the Src family of nonreceptor tyrosine kinases (SFKs), which are involved in cell proliferation and migration. Fyn contains an SH3 domain, which serves as a target for tau’s proline-rich (PxxP) motif. Fyn phosphorylates tau, specifically at tyrosine residue Y18, making fyn-disruptive therapy worth exploring.
Dr. Putra shared several currently proposed mechanisms of action regarding the pathogenesis of the tau plaque. In the first theory, the tau protein assumes a closed conformation in its normal state, thereby concealing the PxxP motif. However, in the second theory, pathogenesis causes the tau protein to assume an open conformation in the disease state, exposing pAT8 sites and making them available to fyn phosphorylation. In the second scenario, which involves Alzheimer’s disease, the fyn-tau interaction still occurs in open conformation state and is thought to occur in the postsynaptic terminal of the dendritic spine.
To investigate the proposed disease-causing mechanisms, Dr. Putra and her team studied status epilepticus in a rodent model of status epilepticus (SE). They used proximity ligation assay to measure interactions between Fyn and tau. They found AT8 and Y18 Fyn and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation in a rat model and increased Fyn interaction. In addition, neuronal nitric oxide synthase levels were elevated 24 hours post-status. When investigating the fyn activity and interactions in the human brain, they found fyn phosphorylation – something that had never been reported before.
From there, Dr. Putra’s team sought to answer whether manipulating fyn-tau interactions could modify epilepsy. To do so, they conducted an experiment using the pharmacological Fyn inhibitor sarcatinib (SAR) and found it modified dysregulated postsynaptic proteins 24 hours post-SE in rat models. Longer exposure also bore a positive effect on epileptic rats.
After treating epileptic rats with SAR for 7 weeks, Dr. Putra found that SAR therapy reduces convulsive seizures during 7 weeks post-SE in rats. Recruiting pharmacological Fyn inhibition sufficiently decreased Fyn-tau interaction, NR-PSD95 complex, and convulsive seizures in chronic epilepsy.
Ultimately, her findings showed that SE exacerbates fyn-tau interactions, with chronic epilepsy modeling showing sustained elevation. In addition, fyn-tau interactions mediate and sustain neuronal hyperexcitability in the epileptic population.
“The impact on clinical care will be bidirectional relevant therapeutic targets in epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Putra told the audience.
Trends in epilepsy comorbidity and mortality
The final presenter, University of Washington researcher Aaron del Pozo, PhD, explained the impact of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease on overall outcomes and epilepsy.
“Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease carries a high seizure risk that affects quality of life as well as mortality,” Dr. del Pozo said.
According to data published in the British Medical Journal in 2020, the number of patients with epilepsy who had degenerative disease of the central nervous system or vascular dementia and delirium increased by approximately 210% from 1999 to 2017. Cerebral palsy trailed in second place with malignant neoplasms increasing by 50%. Cerebrovascular disease–related death in the epileptic population showed nearly negligible change, and ischemic heart disease and epilepsy decreased by approximately 25% and 15%, respectively. In addition, patients who have both epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease are less likely to survive than patients who develop epilepsy after Alzheimer’s disease.
“We found that having epilepsy alone has decreased mortality, but having it in addition to other generative diseases of the central nervous system has a 200% increase in mortality,” Dr. del Pozo said.
ORLANDO — “,” said Delia Marias Talos, MD, at a session of the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES).
A Closer Look at the Brain
“Phosphorylated tau correlates with cognitive function and executive function recorded presurgery, but it looks like the generative changes are more associated with temporal lobe and aging.”
Alzheimer’s disease is a degenerative condition marked by progressive memory deficits and cognitive decline noted by amyloid plaques and a formation of neurofibrillary tangles resulting from tau hyperphosphorylation.
Epilepsy, on the other hand, is a multifactorial condition with causes ranging from metabolic disorders, structural defects, infections, genetic mutations, and autoimmune disorders. In addition, nearly 50% of all epileptic seizures are idiopathic in nature.
Dr. Talos, professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania Perlman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, and her team did not see neurofibrillary tangles in the presurgical brains of epilepsy patients they studied; however, they saw tau plaques. In the future, they seek to investigate the features that distinguish epilepsy from Alzheimer’s disease.
Toxic fragments are probably there because amyloid precursor protein is highly upregulated, she told conference attendees. “We hypothesized that amyloid plaque is cleared but not impaired in epilepsy.”
The prognosis looks comparatively worse for patients who have Alzheimer’s disease and comorbid epilepsy than for patients who have only epilepsy. In addition, Dr. Talos stated that seizures appear to have an additive effort on Alzheimer’s disease.
Fyn-disruptive Therapy
Marson Putra, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist and postdoctoral researcher at Iowa State in Ames, Iowa, presented on the potential impact of a novel fyn-tau interaction as an unexplored target for epileptogensis and epilepsy.
Dr. Putra studied whether fyn-tau interactions exist in epilepsy. In both Alzheimer’s disease and epilepsy, Fyn belongs to the Src family of nonreceptor tyrosine kinases (SFKs), which are involved in cell proliferation and migration. Fyn contains an SH3 domain, which serves as a target for tau’s proline-rich (PxxP) motif. Fyn phosphorylates tau, specifically at tyrosine residue Y18, making fyn-disruptive therapy worth exploring.
Dr. Putra shared several currently proposed mechanisms of action regarding the pathogenesis of the tau plaque. In the first theory, the tau protein assumes a closed conformation in its normal state, thereby concealing the PxxP motif. However, in the second theory, pathogenesis causes the tau protein to assume an open conformation in the disease state, exposing pAT8 sites and making them available to fyn phosphorylation. In the second scenario, which involves Alzheimer’s disease, the fyn-tau interaction still occurs in open conformation state and is thought to occur in the postsynaptic terminal of the dendritic spine.
To investigate the proposed disease-causing mechanisms, Dr. Putra and her team studied status epilepticus in a rodent model of status epilepticus (SE). They used proximity ligation assay to measure interactions between Fyn and tau. They found AT8 and Y18 Fyn and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation in a rat model and increased Fyn interaction. In addition, neuronal nitric oxide synthase levels were elevated 24 hours post-status. When investigating the fyn activity and interactions in the human brain, they found fyn phosphorylation – something that had never been reported before.
From there, Dr. Putra’s team sought to answer whether manipulating fyn-tau interactions could modify epilepsy. To do so, they conducted an experiment using the pharmacological Fyn inhibitor sarcatinib (SAR) and found it modified dysregulated postsynaptic proteins 24 hours post-SE in rat models. Longer exposure also bore a positive effect on epileptic rats.
After treating epileptic rats with SAR for 7 weeks, Dr. Putra found that SAR therapy reduces convulsive seizures during 7 weeks post-SE in rats. Recruiting pharmacological Fyn inhibition sufficiently decreased Fyn-tau interaction, NR-PSD95 complex, and convulsive seizures in chronic epilepsy.
Ultimately, her findings showed that SE exacerbates fyn-tau interactions, with chronic epilepsy modeling showing sustained elevation. In addition, fyn-tau interactions mediate and sustain neuronal hyperexcitability in the epileptic population.
“The impact on clinical care will be bidirectional relevant therapeutic targets in epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Putra told the audience.
Trends in epilepsy comorbidity and mortality
The final presenter, University of Washington researcher Aaron del Pozo, PhD, explained the impact of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease on overall outcomes and epilepsy.
“Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease carries a high seizure risk that affects quality of life as well as mortality,” Dr. del Pozo said.
According to data published in the British Medical Journal in 2020, the number of patients with epilepsy who had degenerative disease of the central nervous system or vascular dementia and delirium increased by approximately 210% from 1999 to 2017. Cerebral palsy trailed in second place with malignant neoplasms increasing by 50%. Cerebrovascular disease–related death in the epileptic population showed nearly negligible change, and ischemic heart disease and epilepsy decreased by approximately 25% and 15%, respectively. In addition, patients who have both epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease are less likely to survive than patients who develop epilepsy after Alzheimer’s disease.
“We found that having epilepsy alone has decreased mortality, but having it in addition to other generative diseases of the central nervous system has a 200% increase in mortality,” Dr. del Pozo said.
ORLANDO — “,” said Delia Marias Talos, MD, at a session of the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES).
A Closer Look at the Brain
“Phosphorylated tau correlates with cognitive function and executive function recorded presurgery, but it looks like the generative changes are more associated with temporal lobe and aging.”
Alzheimer’s disease is a degenerative condition marked by progressive memory deficits and cognitive decline noted by amyloid plaques and a formation of neurofibrillary tangles resulting from tau hyperphosphorylation.
Epilepsy, on the other hand, is a multifactorial condition with causes ranging from metabolic disorders, structural defects, infections, genetic mutations, and autoimmune disorders. In addition, nearly 50% of all epileptic seizures are idiopathic in nature.
Dr. Talos, professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania Perlman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, and her team did not see neurofibrillary tangles in the presurgical brains of epilepsy patients they studied; however, they saw tau plaques. In the future, they seek to investigate the features that distinguish epilepsy from Alzheimer’s disease.
Toxic fragments are probably there because amyloid precursor protein is highly upregulated, she told conference attendees. “We hypothesized that amyloid plaque is cleared but not impaired in epilepsy.”
The prognosis looks comparatively worse for patients who have Alzheimer’s disease and comorbid epilepsy than for patients who have only epilepsy. In addition, Dr. Talos stated that seizures appear to have an additive effort on Alzheimer’s disease.
Fyn-disruptive Therapy
Marson Putra, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist and postdoctoral researcher at Iowa State in Ames, Iowa, presented on the potential impact of a novel fyn-tau interaction as an unexplored target for epileptogensis and epilepsy.
Dr. Putra studied whether fyn-tau interactions exist in epilepsy. In both Alzheimer’s disease and epilepsy, Fyn belongs to the Src family of nonreceptor tyrosine kinases (SFKs), which are involved in cell proliferation and migration. Fyn contains an SH3 domain, which serves as a target for tau’s proline-rich (PxxP) motif. Fyn phosphorylates tau, specifically at tyrosine residue Y18, making fyn-disruptive therapy worth exploring.
Dr. Putra shared several currently proposed mechanisms of action regarding the pathogenesis of the tau plaque. In the first theory, the tau protein assumes a closed conformation in its normal state, thereby concealing the PxxP motif. However, in the second theory, pathogenesis causes the tau protein to assume an open conformation in the disease state, exposing pAT8 sites and making them available to fyn phosphorylation. In the second scenario, which involves Alzheimer’s disease, the fyn-tau interaction still occurs in open conformation state and is thought to occur in the postsynaptic terminal of the dendritic spine.
To investigate the proposed disease-causing mechanisms, Dr. Putra and her team studied status epilepticus in a rodent model of status epilepticus (SE). They used proximity ligation assay to measure interactions between Fyn and tau. They found AT8 and Y18 Fyn and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation in a rat model and increased Fyn interaction. In addition, neuronal nitric oxide synthase levels were elevated 24 hours post-status. When investigating the fyn activity and interactions in the human brain, they found fyn phosphorylation – something that had never been reported before.
From there, Dr. Putra’s team sought to answer whether manipulating fyn-tau interactions could modify epilepsy. To do so, they conducted an experiment using the pharmacological Fyn inhibitor sarcatinib (SAR) and found it modified dysregulated postsynaptic proteins 24 hours post-SE in rat models. Longer exposure also bore a positive effect on epileptic rats.
After treating epileptic rats with SAR for 7 weeks, Dr. Putra found that SAR therapy reduces convulsive seizures during 7 weeks post-SE in rats. Recruiting pharmacological Fyn inhibition sufficiently decreased Fyn-tau interaction, NR-PSD95 complex, and convulsive seizures in chronic epilepsy.
Ultimately, her findings showed that SE exacerbates fyn-tau interactions, with chronic epilepsy modeling showing sustained elevation. In addition, fyn-tau interactions mediate and sustain neuronal hyperexcitability in the epileptic population.
“The impact on clinical care will be bidirectional relevant therapeutic targets in epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Putra told the audience.
Trends in epilepsy comorbidity and mortality
The final presenter, University of Washington researcher Aaron del Pozo, PhD, explained the impact of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease on overall outcomes and epilepsy.
“Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease carries a high seizure risk that affects quality of life as well as mortality,” Dr. del Pozo said.
According to data published in the British Medical Journal in 2020, the number of patients with epilepsy who had degenerative disease of the central nervous system or vascular dementia and delirium increased by approximately 210% from 1999 to 2017. Cerebral palsy trailed in second place with malignant neoplasms increasing by 50%. Cerebrovascular disease–related death in the epileptic population showed nearly negligible change, and ischemic heart disease and epilepsy decreased by approximately 25% and 15%, respectively. In addition, patients who have both epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease are less likely to survive than patients who develop epilepsy after Alzheimer’s disease.
“We found that having epilepsy alone has decreased mortality, but having it in addition to other generative diseases of the central nervous system has a 200% increase in mortality,” Dr. del Pozo said.
FROM AES 2023
ALL: ASH Draws Up Tx Guidelines For Patients 15-39
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
Sudden Cardiac Deaths Down Among NCAA Athletes
TOPLINE:
A new study shows sudden cardiac deaths among collegiate athletes decreased over a recent 20-year period, but risks are still elevated among males, Black players, and basketball players, suggesting more intensive screening among these groups is needed.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study examined incidence and surrounding circumstances of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among student athletes who competed in at least one varsity sport at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, or III institutions in the 20 years from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2022.
- Researchers determined causes of death and gathered demographic characteristics using multiple methods, including review of autopsy and other official documents, Internet searches, and contacts to next of kin, coaches, athletic trainers, coroners, medical examiners, scholarship foundations, and physicians involved in the case.
- SCD was defined as sudden unexpected death attributable to a cardiac cause, or a sudden death in a structurally normal heart with no other explanation for death and a history consistent with cardiac-related death that occurred within an hour of symptom onset, or an unwitnessed death occurring within 24 hours of the person being alive.
- Researchers calculated incidence rates over a typical 4-year collegiate career and reported these as athlete-years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of SCD, which accounted for 13% of the 1102 total deaths during the study period, decreased over time, with a 5-year incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.82), while noncardiovascular deaths remained stable.
- IRR for males versus females was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.45-5.88) and for Black versus White athletes was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.98-3.94).
- Basketball and football players were at increased risk of SCD; for example, the incidence rate among Division I Black male basketball athletes was 1:1924 per 4-year athlete-years.
- The most common postmortem finding was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death, at 19%, followed by idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy/possible cardiomyopathy (17%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (13%), with no cases of death attributable to COVID-19 myocarditis.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the reason for the decrease in SCD is unknown, “our data suggest that strategies to reduce SCD among competing athletes may be having a positive effect,” wrote the authors. More intensive screening strategies among groups with high SCD incidence may be warranted, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Bradley J. Petek, MD, Sports Cardiology Program, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. It was published online November 13 in Circulation and presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions (abstract 479).
LIMITATIONS:
Some cases of SCD may have been missed as there is no mandatory reporting system in the United States. Approaches to cardiac autopsy and reporting varied significantly. The cause of death was unknown in 16 cases, and postmortem genetic testing was available for only 3% of athletes. As the study didn’t have data on resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest or preparticipation cardiovascular screening practices and findings, definitive conclusions couldn’t be drawn regarding causal factors underlying the decreased incidence of SCD.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no outside funding source. Dr. Petek has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A new study shows sudden cardiac deaths among collegiate athletes decreased over a recent 20-year period, but risks are still elevated among males, Black players, and basketball players, suggesting more intensive screening among these groups is needed.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study examined incidence and surrounding circumstances of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among student athletes who competed in at least one varsity sport at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, or III institutions in the 20 years from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2022.
- Researchers determined causes of death and gathered demographic characteristics using multiple methods, including review of autopsy and other official documents, Internet searches, and contacts to next of kin, coaches, athletic trainers, coroners, medical examiners, scholarship foundations, and physicians involved in the case.
- SCD was defined as sudden unexpected death attributable to a cardiac cause, or a sudden death in a structurally normal heart with no other explanation for death and a history consistent with cardiac-related death that occurred within an hour of symptom onset, or an unwitnessed death occurring within 24 hours of the person being alive.
- Researchers calculated incidence rates over a typical 4-year collegiate career and reported these as athlete-years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of SCD, which accounted for 13% of the 1102 total deaths during the study period, decreased over time, with a 5-year incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.82), while noncardiovascular deaths remained stable.
- IRR for males versus females was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.45-5.88) and for Black versus White athletes was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.98-3.94).
- Basketball and football players were at increased risk of SCD; for example, the incidence rate among Division I Black male basketball athletes was 1:1924 per 4-year athlete-years.
- The most common postmortem finding was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death, at 19%, followed by idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy/possible cardiomyopathy (17%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (13%), with no cases of death attributable to COVID-19 myocarditis.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the reason for the decrease in SCD is unknown, “our data suggest that strategies to reduce SCD among competing athletes may be having a positive effect,” wrote the authors. More intensive screening strategies among groups with high SCD incidence may be warranted, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Bradley J. Petek, MD, Sports Cardiology Program, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. It was published online November 13 in Circulation and presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions (abstract 479).
LIMITATIONS:
Some cases of SCD may have been missed as there is no mandatory reporting system in the United States. Approaches to cardiac autopsy and reporting varied significantly. The cause of death was unknown in 16 cases, and postmortem genetic testing was available for only 3% of athletes. As the study didn’t have data on resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest or preparticipation cardiovascular screening practices and findings, definitive conclusions couldn’t be drawn regarding causal factors underlying the decreased incidence of SCD.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no outside funding source. Dr. Petek has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A new study shows sudden cardiac deaths among collegiate athletes decreased over a recent 20-year period, but risks are still elevated among males, Black players, and basketball players, suggesting more intensive screening among these groups is needed.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study examined incidence and surrounding circumstances of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among student athletes who competed in at least one varsity sport at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, or III institutions in the 20 years from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2022.
- Researchers determined causes of death and gathered demographic characteristics using multiple methods, including review of autopsy and other official documents, Internet searches, and contacts to next of kin, coaches, athletic trainers, coroners, medical examiners, scholarship foundations, and physicians involved in the case.
- SCD was defined as sudden unexpected death attributable to a cardiac cause, or a sudden death in a structurally normal heart with no other explanation for death and a history consistent with cardiac-related death that occurred within an hour of symptom onset, or an unwitnessed death occurring within 24 hours of the person being alive.
- Researchers calculated incidence rates over a typical 4-year collegiate career and reported these as athlete-years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of SCD, which accounted for 13% of the 1102 total deaths during the study period, decreased over time, with a 5-year incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.82), while noncardiovascular deaths remained stable.
- IRR for males versus females was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.45-5.88) and for Black versus White athletes was 2.79 (95% CI, 1.98-3.94).
- Basketball and football players were at increased risk of SCD; for example, the incidence rate among Division I Black male basketball athletes was 1:1924 per 4-year athlete-years.
- The most common postmortem finding was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death, at 19%, followed by idiopathic left ventricular hypertrophy/possible cardiomyopathy (17%) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (13%), with no cases of death attributable to COVID-19 myocarditis.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the reason for the decrease in SCD is unknown, “our data suggest that strategies to reduce SCD among competing athletes may be having a positive effect,” wrote the authors. More intensive screening strategies among groups with high SCD incidence may be warranted, they added.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Bradley J. Petek, MD, Sports Cardiology Program, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. It was published online November 13 in Circulation and presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions (abstract 479).
LIMITATIONS:
Some cases of SCD may have been missed as there is no mandatory reporting system in the United States. Approaches to cardiac autopsy and reporting varied significantly. The cause of death was unknown in 16 cases, and postmortem genetic testing was available for only 3% of athletes. As the study didn’t have data on resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest or preparticipation cardiovascular screening practices and findings, definitive conclusions couldn’t be drawn regarding causal factors underlying the decreased incidence of SCD.
DISCLOSURES:
There was no outside funding source. Dr. Petek has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite Few CNS Gene Therapies for Epilepsy, New Research Offers Hope
ORLANDO — Scientists have made major strides in gene therapy, and experts convened to share their insights on gene therapy development and challenges at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society during a session called “Recent Advances Gene Therapies for the Epilepsies: A Preclinical Perspective.”
Four types of gene therapy
Suzanne Paradis, PhD, cofounder and president of Severin Therapeutics Inc., initiated the session, giving the audience an overview of the four types of gene therapy — the first being gene replacements, where a copy of the gene is added back. The second type of therapy, transcriptional enhancement, entails upregulating an endogenous copy of the gene.
“Both gene replacement and transcriptional enhancement can prove effective in treating monogenetic genetic disorders,” she said.
The third type is transcriptional enhancement, which upregulates an endogenous copy of the gene.
Generalizable gene therapies, the fourth type of gene therapy, involve adding a gene that bypasses either or both ictogenesis and seizure propagation.
As it stands, of the nearly 30 gene therapies currently marketed for neurological disorders, only four are indicated for central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Of the four currently approved by the FDA for seizures, onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (Zolgensma) is the only one that truly targets the CNS.
“Developing treatment that targets the CNS requires several important considerations,” Dr. Paradis said. “These include the right model system, appropriate delivery method, a product that can cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and target neurons, and the durability of transgene expression.”
Epilepsy May Be Amenable to Gene Therapy
To illustrate these principles, Meghan Eller, a PhD candidate at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, shared research on potential new gene therapies that might one day become effective options in treating CNS diseases.
She spoke on viral-mediated gene delivery, specifically by employing adeno-associated virus (AAV) treatment in this arena.
“We capitalized on the ability of viruses to infect genetic materials,” she told the audience. “Viruses are naturally designed to infect cells and deliver genetic material.”
The viruses have three components that make them attractive. One of three viruses is typically used for this work — adenoviruses, lentiviruses, or AAV. The virus type used may be dictated by the gene of interest, meaning whether the gene is expressed, knocked down, or edited. Lastly, several regulatory elements are required; these are the promoter, polyadenylation signal, and the regulatory binding sites necessary for transcription.
“More recent technologies are CRISPR for gene editing, and with promoter, we can control the specific cell type in which gene will be expressed,” Ms. Eller explained.
Regulatory binding sites within a binding site allow regulation within an endogenous transgene.
“AAV genome is naturally single-stranded, but we can introduce a mutation to form a self-complementary cassette,” she said.
Using AAV as a vector for gene delivery has several advantages. First and foremost, it is easy to engineer. Moreover, it can infect dividing and non-dividing cells. It also exhibits long-lasting expression and has a low immune response. In addition, the AAV virion particle has demonstrated activity on cells found in numerous organs, including those of the lymph nodes, adrenal glands, kidneys, various muscle tissue, retinal cells, and digestive system as well as the CNS.
Yet, for all its benefits, the AAV comes with some limitations. For example, it carries as preexisting immunity and exhibits lost expression in dividing cells.
Another important drawback is its package size constraints, as many genes do not fall within its 2.4 kb self-complementary of 4.8 kb single-stranded packaging capacity.
For her research, Ms. Eller and colleagues took into account several considerations for therapy development. The appropriate route helps ensure the therapy reaches critical regions of the brain and that there is adequate expression in the periphery. The immune response becomes important regarding the body’s reaction to non-self proteins — a property, which, at times, can be modified based on dose. Thirdly, expression level and cell type expression can affect the therapy’s activity. In addition, a small amount of the vector will be incorporated into the host DNA.
The fact that AAV can cross the BBB allows for intravenous delivery; however, it limits brain transduction.
“Gene therapy may not be as effective if the delivery window is missed or there is significant neuron loss,” Ms. Eller said.
She stressed the importance of determining the minimal dose necessary for therapeutic benefit to minimize dose-related toxicity. She also distinguished when and why one might choose one type of gene therapy over another, using gene addition to help illustrate her point.
“Gene addition is the most important approach when there is a monogenic gene,” she said. “SLC13A5 and SLC6A1 are examples where gene addition is effective.”
Modulation of ion channels can help the delivery of therapeutic. Such is the case for NaV1.1 and Kv1.1. Finally, AAV can enhance the delivery of therapeutic proteins, as seen with Sema4D and neuropeptide Y.
Ms. Eller explained how the path to developing a gene therapy as an investigational new drug mirrors those historically traveled in conventional drug development to some extent. Preclinical studies offer proof of concept by determining efficacy, dosing, and toxicity in small animals such as mice. From there, studies progress to the pre-IND state by exploring pharmacology and clinical trial design while further investigating toxicity. FDA and regulatory approval require addressing safety concerns and establishing therapeutic benefit, at which point the therapy progresses to the fourth and final stage: clinical trials. During this stage, investigators monitor dosage and safety while evaluating efficacy.Optimal transgene expression regulation requires scientists to create an environment that gives rise to the perfect level of transgene expression. Otherwise, too little protein will result in no therapeutic benefit, while too much protein can become toxic.
Ms. Eller presented her work on investigating whether the reduction of Scn8a is therapeutic, given that epileptogenic Scn8a mutations increase neuronal firing. She treated both the control and Scn8a mice with antisense oligonucleotides (ASO), which depresses neuronal activity. Upon comparing the effects in ASO-treated mice to control, she found that long-term downregulation of Scn8a (50%) prevents seizures and increases survival — regardless of whether ASO therapy was initiated before or during seizure onset.
Additional studies exploring novel and potential gene therapies for epilepsy are on the horizon.
Dr. Paradis is an employee of Severin Therapeutics Inc. Ms Eller has no relevant disclosures.
ORLANDO — Scientists have made major strides in gene therapy, and experts convened to share their insights on gene therapy development and challenges at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society during a session called “Recent Advances Gene Therapies for the Epilepsies: A Preclinical Perspective.”
Four types of gene therapy
Suzanne Paradis, PhD, cofounder and president of Severin Therapeutics Inc., initiated the session, giving the audience an overview of the four types of gene therapy — the first being gene replacements, where a copy of the gene is added back. The second type of therapy, transcriptional enhancement, entails upregulating an endogenous copy of the gene.
“Both gene replacement and transcriptional enhancement can prove effective in treating monogenetic genetic disorders,” she said.
The third type is transcriptional enhancement, which upregulates an endogenous copy of the gene.
Generalizable gene therapies, the fourth type of gene therapy, involve adding a gene that bypasses either or both ictogenesis and seizure propagation.
As it stands, of the nearly 30 gene therapies currently marketed for neurological disorders, only four are indicated for central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Of the four currently approved by the FDA for seizures, onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (Zolgensma) is the only one that truly targets the CNS.
“Developing treatment that targets the CNS requires several important considerations,” Dr. Paradis said. “These include the right model system, appropriate delivery method, a product that can cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and target neurons, and the durability of transgene expression.”
Epilepsy May Be Amenable to Gene Therapy
To illustrate these principles, Meghan Eller, a PhD candidate at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, shared research on potential new gene therapies that might one day become effective options in treating CNS diseases.
She spoke on viral-mediated gene delivery, specifically by employing adeno-associated virus (AAV) treatment in this arena.
“We capitalized on the ability of viruses to infect genetic materials,” she told the audience. “Viruses are naturally designed to infect cells and deliver genetic material.”
The viruses have three components that make them attractive. One of three viruses is typically used for this work — adenoviruses, lentiviruses, or AAV. The virus type used may be dictated by the gene of interest, meaning whether the gene is expressed, knocked down, or edited. Lastly, several regulatory elements are required; these are the promoter, polyadenylation signal, and the regulatory binding sites necessary for transcription.
“More recent technologies are CRISPR for gene editing, and with promoter, we can control the specific cell type in which gene will be expressed,” Ms. Eller explained.
Regulatory binding sites within a binding site allow regulation within an endogenous transgene.
“AAV genome is naturally single-stranded, but we can introduce a mutation to form a self-complementary cassette,” she said.
Using AAV as a vector for gene delivery has several advantages. First and foremost, it is easy to engineer. Moreover, it can infect dividing and non-dividing cells. It also exhibits long-lasting expression and has a low immune response. In addition, the AAV virion particle has demonstrated activity on cells found in numerous organs, including those of the lymph nodes, adrenal glands, kidneys, various muscle tissue, retinal cells, and digestive system as well as the CNS.
Yet, for all its benefits, the AAV comes with some limitations. For example, it carries as preexisting immunity and exhibits lost expression in dividing cells.
Another important drawback is its package size constraints, as many genes do not fall within its 2.4 kb self-complementary of 4.8 kb single-stranded packaging capacity.
For her research, Ms. Eller and colleagues took into account several considerations for therapy development. The appropriate route helps ensure the therapy reaches critical regions of the brain and that there is adequate expression in the periphery. The immune response becomes important regarding the body’s reaction to non-self proteins — a property, which, at times, can be modified based on dose. Thirdly, expression level and cell type expression can affect the therapy’s activity. In addition, a small amount of the vector will be incorporated into the host DNA.
The fact that AAV can cross the BBB allows for intravenous delivery; however, it limits brain transduction.
“Gene therapy may not be as effective if the delivery window is missed or there is significant neuron loss,” Ms. Eller said.
She stressed the importance of determining the minimal dose necessary for therapeutic benefit to minimize dose-related toxicity. She also distinguished when and why one might choose one type of gene therapy over another, using gene addition to help illustrate her point.
“Gene addition is the most important approach when there is a monogenic gene,” she said. “SLC13A5 and SLC6A1 are examples where gene addition is effective.”
Modulation of ion channels can help the delivery of therapeutic. Such is the case for NaV1.1 and Kv1.1. Finally, AAV can enhance the delivery of therapeutic proteins, as seen with Sema4D and neuropeptide Y.
Ms. Eller explained how the path to developing a gene therapy as an investigational new drug mirrors those historically traveled in conventional drug development to some extent. Preclinical studies offer proof of concept by determining efficacy, dosing, and toxicity in small animals such as mice. From there, studies progress to the pre-IND state by exploring pharmacology and clinical trial design while further investigating toxicity. FDA and regulatory approval require addressing safety concerns and establishing therapeutic benefit, at which point the therapy progresses to the fourth and final stage: clinical trials. During this stage, investigators monitor dosage and safety while evaluating efficacy.Optimal transgene expression regulation requires scientists to create an environment that gives rise to the perfect level of transgene expression. Otherwise, too little protein will result in no therapeutic benefit, while too much protein can become toxic.
Ms. Eller presented her work on investigating whether the reduction of Scn8a is therapeutic, given that epileptogenic Scn8a mutations increase neuronal firing. She treated both the control and Scn8a mice with antisense oligonucleotides (ASO), which depresses neuronal activity. Upon comparing the effects in ASO-treated mice to control, she found that long-term downregulation of Scn8a (50%) prevents seizures and increases survival — regardless of whether ASO therapy was initiated before or during seizure onset.
Additional studies exploring novel and potential gene therapies for epilepsy are on the horizon.
Dr. Paradis is an employee of Severin Therapeutics Inc. Ms Eller has no relevant disclosures.
ORLANDO — Scientists have made major strides in gene therapy, and experts convened to share their insights on gene therapy development and challenges at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society during a session called “Recent Advances Gene Therapies for the Epilepsies: A Preclinical Perspective.”
Four types of gene therapy
Suzanne Paradis, PhD, cofounder and president of Severin Therapeutics Inc., initiated the session, giving the audience an overview of the four types of gene therapy — the first being gene replacements, where a copy of the gene is added back. The second type of therapy, transcriptional enhancement, entails upregulating an endogenous copy of the gene.
“Both gene replacement and transcriptional enhancement can prove effective in treating monogenetic genetic disorders,” she said.
The third type is transcriptional enhancement, which upregulates an endogenous copy of the gene.
Generalizable gene therapies, the fourth type of gene therapy, involve adding a gene that bypasses either or both ictogenesis and seizure propagation.
As it stands, of the nearly 30 gene therapies currently marketed for neurological disorders, only four are indicated for central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Of the four currently approved by the FDA for seizures, onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (Zolgensma) is the only one that truly targets the CNS.
“Developing treatment that targets the CNS requires several important considerations,” Dr. Paradis said. “These include the right model system, appropriate delivery method, a product that can cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and target neurons, and the durability of transgene expression.”
Epilepsy May Be Amenable to Gene Therapy
To illustrate these principles, Meghan Eller, a PhD candidate at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, shared research on potential new gene therapies that might one day become effective options in treating CNS diseases.
She spoke on viral-mediated gene delivery, specifically by employing adeno-associated virus (AAV) treatment in this arena.
“We capitalized on the ability of viruses to infect genetic materials,” she told the audience. “Viruses are naturally designed to infect cells and deliver genetic material.”
The viruses have three components that make them attractive. One of three viruses is typically used for this work — adenoviruses, lentiviruses, or AAV. The virus type used may be dictated by the gene of interest, meaning whether the gene is expressed, knocked down, or edited. Lastly, several regulatory elements are required; these are the promoter, polyadenylation signal, and the regulatory binding sites necessary for transcription.
“More recent technologies are CRISPR for gene editing, and with promoter, we can control the specific cell type in which gene will be expressed,” Ms. Eller explained.
Regulatory binding sites within a binding site allow regulation within an endogenous transgene.
“AAV genome is naturally single-stranded, but we can introduce a mutation to form a self-complementary cassette,” she said.
Using AAV as a vector for gene delivery has several advantages. First and foremost, it is easy to engineer. Moreover, it can infect dividing and non-dividing cells. It also exhibits long-lasting expression and has a low immune response. In addition, the AAV virion particle has demonstrated activity on cells found in numerous organs, including those of the lymph nodes, adrenal glands, kidneys, various muscle tissue, retinal cells, and digestive system as well as the CNS.
Yet, for all its benefits, the AAV comes with some limitations. For example, it carries as preexisting immunity and exhibits lost expression in dividing cells.
Another important drawback is its package size constraints, as many genes do not fall within its 2.4 kb self-complementary of 4.8 kb single-stranded packaging capacity.
For her research, Ms. Eller and colleagues took into account several considerations for therapy development. The appropriate route helps ensure the therapy reaches critical regions of the brain and that there is adequate expression in the periphery. The immune response becomes important regarding the body’s reaction to non-self proteins — a property, which, at times, can be modified based on dose. Thirdly, expression level and cell type expression can affect the therapy’s activity. In addition, a small amount of the vector will be incorporated into the host DNA.
The fact that AAV can cross the BBB allows for intravenous delivery; however, it limits brain transduction.
“Gene therapy may not be as effective if the delivery window is missed or there is significant neuron loss,” Ms. Eller said.
She stressed the importance of determining the minimal dose necessary for therapeutic benefit to minimize dose-related toxicity. She also distinguished when and why one might choose one type of gene therapy over another, using gene addition to help illustrate her point.
“Gene addition is the most important approach when there is a monogenic gene,” she said. “SLC13A5 and SLC6A1 are examples where gene addition is effective.”
Modulation of ion channels can help the delivery of therapeutic. Such is the case for NaV1.1 and Kv1.1. Finally, AAV can enhance the delivery of therapeutic proteins, as seen with Sema4D and neuropeptide Y.
Ms. Eller explained how the path to developing a gene therapy as an investigational new drug mirrors those historically traveled in conventional drug development to some extent. Preclinical studies offer proof of concept by determining efficacy, dosing, and toxicity in small animals such as mice. From there, studies progress to the pre-IND state by exploring pharmacology and clinical trial design while further investigating toxicity. FDA and regulatory approval require addressing safety concerns and establishing therapeutic benefit, at which point the therapy progresses to the fourth and final stage: clinical trials. During this stage, investigators monitor dosage and safety while evaluating efficacy.Optimal transgene expression regulation requires scientists to create an environment that gives rise to the perfect level of transgene expression. Otherwise, too little protein will result in no therapeutic benefit, while too much protein can become toxic.
Ms. Eller presented her work on investigating whether the reduction of Scn8a is therapeutic, given that epileptogenic Scn8a mutations increase neuronal firing. She treated both the control and Scn8a mice with antisense oligonucleotides (ASO), which depresses neuronal activity. Upon comparing the effects in ASO-treated mice to control, she found that long-term downregulation of Scn8a (50%) prevents seizures and increases survival — regardless of whether ASO therapy was initiated before or during seizure onset.
Additional studies exploring novel and potential gene therapies for epilepsy are on the horizon.
Dr. Paradis is an employee of Severin Therapeutics Inc. Ms Eller has no relevant disclosures.
FROM AES 2023
Epilepsy Linked to Earlier, More Rapid, Cognitive Decline
ORLANDO — People with epilepsy are more likely to decline cognitively compared with those without epilepsy, new research suggests.
Results of the large, longitudinal study show that seizures predicted earlier conversion time from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) but were not associated with conversion from MCI to dementia.
“Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes need to be treated more aggressively because they can impact cognition, but epilepsy is another risk factor that needs to be treated in a timely fashion because it appears to be also associated with cognitive impairment,” said study investigator Ifrah Zawar MD, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
The study (abstract #2.172) was presented on December 2 at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
An Understudied Issue
Comorbid seizures occur in up to 64% of those with dementia, and patients with dementia and epilepsy have a more aggressive disease course, faster cognitive decline, and more severe neuronal loss, Dr. Zawar told Medscape Medical News.
But the impact of seizures on the conversion of cognitively healthy to MCI and from MCI to dementia, after accounting for cardiovascular risk factors, has not been well studied.
Researchers analyzed longitudinal data of 13,726 patients, mean age about 70 years, who were cognitively healthy or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were recruited from 39 Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) centers in the United States from 2005 to 2021.
Investigators categorized participants into three groups: active (having had seizures in the past year and/or requiring active treatment; N = 118), resolved (not on any treatment for the past year and not having seizures; N = 226), and no seizures (never having had seizures; N = 13,382).
The primary outcome was conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI/dementia and from MCI to dementia in those with and without active epilepsy and resolved epilepsy.
Factors associated with conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI among those with current or active epilepsy included older age (P <.001 for ages 60-80 years and P =.002 for age 80 years or older vs younger than 60 years), male sex (P <.001), lower education (P <.001), hypertension (P <.001), and diabetes (P <.001).
The hazard ratio (HR) for earlier conversion from healthy to worse cognition among those with active epilepsy was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.38-2.24; P <.001), even after accounting for risk factors.
Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to convert from healthy cognition to MCI among people with active epilepsy was about 5 years compared with about 9 years for those with resolved epilepsy and 10.5 years for those without epilepsy.
The story was similar for faster conversion from MCI to dementia. Compared with having no epilepsy, the HR for faster conversion for active epilepsy was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.20-1.73; P <.001).
In addition, the median time to conversion from MCI to dementia was about 3 years for those with active epilepsy compared with about 5 years for those with resolved epilepsy and about 5 years for those without epilepsy.
“It’s important for physicians to understand that uncontrolled epilepsy or active epilepsy is going to impact patients’ cognition adversely, which in itself is associated with increased comorbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Zawar.
The mechanism driving the acceleration to worse cognition in people with epilepsy is “complicated and involves a multitude of factors,” she said.
The researchers did not specifically investigate how use of antiseizure medications correlated with cognitive outcomes, but Dr. Zawar believes that “epilepsy in itself impacts cognition.”
The researchers also didn’t have EEG data for study participants who were recruited from Alzheimer’s disease centers where EEGs aren’t routinely carried out, so such data for many patients may not necessarily exist, said Dr. Zawar.
Important Research
Commenting for this news organization, Bruce Hermann, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, said that the study is important because of the, “tremendous interest and concern about aging with epilepsy.”
“We want to know how people with chronic epilepsy age cognitively and what’s the cognitive course of those who have late onset epilepsy, particularly those with unknown etiology,” he added.
Dr. Hermann noted that much of the research in this area has been relatively small and single-center investigations.
“These larger-scale investigations from outside the epilepsy community are so important because they have data on large numbers of subjects, they have cognitive data, and follow-ups over long periods of time, and they’re providing some really novel information,” Dr. Hermann said.
He added that terms used in the dementia world such as MCI and frank dementia are somewhat foreign to epileptologists. In addition, interventions to delay, treat, or prevent cognitive decline such as exercise, diet, social activity, and mental stimulation that are regularly discussed by dementia experts are underrepresented in the epilepsy world.
“The things they talk about in memory clinics in the aging world almost routinely have not penetrated to the epilepsy clinics for aging individuals and for the epilepsy community in general.”
The study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify cognitive decline. “It would be nice to see how these people look with traditional neuropsychological tests,” said Dr. Hermann.
He added that information on the impact of epilepsy on different MCI phenotypes, for example, pure memory impairment subtype; pure nonmemory subtype; and multiple domain subtype, would also be useful.
The study was supported by the AES and the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Zawar and Dr. Hermann report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO — People with epilepsy are more likely to decline cognitively compared with those without epilepsy, new research suggests.
Results of the large, longitudinal study show that seizures predicted earlier conversion time from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) but were not associated with conversion from MCI to dementia.
“Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes need to be treated more aggressively because they can impact cognition, but epilepsy is another risk factor that needs to be treated in a timely fashion because it appears to be also associated with cognitive impairment,” said study investigator Ifrah Zawar MD, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
The study (abstract #2.172) was presented on December 2 at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
An Understudied Issue
Comorbid seizures occur in up to 64% of those with dementia, and patients with dementia and epilepsy have a more aggressive disease course, faster cognitive decline, and more severe neuronal loss, Dr. Zawar told Medscape Medical News.
But the impact of seizures on the conversion of cognitively healthy to MCI and from MCI to dementia, after accounting for cardiovascular risk factors, has not been well studied.
Researchers analyzed longitudinal data of 13,726 patients, mean age about 70 years, who were cognitively healthy or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were recruited from 39 Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) centers in the United States from 2005 to 2021.
Investigators categorized participants into three groups: active (having had seizures in the past year and/or requiring active treatment; N = 118), resolved (not on any treatment for the past year and not having seizures; N = 226), and no seizures (never having had seizures; N = 13,382).
The primary outcome was conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI/dementia and from MCI to dementia in those with and without active epilepsy and resolved epilepsy.
Factors associated with conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI among those with current or active epilepsy included older age (P <.001 for ages 60-80 years and P =.002 for age 80 years or older vs younger than 60 years), male sex (P <.001), lower education (P <.001), hypertension (P <.001), and diabetes (P <.001).
The hazard ratio (HR) for earlier conversion from healthy to worse cognition among those with active epilepsy was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.38-2.24; P <.001), even after accounting for risk factors.
Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to convert from healthy cognition to MCI among people with active epilepsy was about 5 years compared with about 9 years for those with resolved epilepsy and 10.5 years for those without epilepsy.
The story was similar for faster conversion from MCI to dementia. Compared with having no epilepsy, the HR for faster conversion for active epilepsy was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.20-1.73; P <.001).
In addition, the median time to conversion from MCI to dementia was about 3 years for those with active epilepsy compared with about 5 years for those with resolved epilepsy and about 5 years for those without epilepsy.
“It’s important for physicians to understand that uncontrolled epilepsy or active epilepsy is going to impact patients’ cognition adversely, which in itself is associated with increased comorbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Zawar.
The mechanism driving the acceleration to worse cognition in people with epilepsy is “complicated and involves a multitude of factors,” she said.
The researchers did not specifically investigate how use of antiseizure medications correlated with cognitive outcomes, but Dr. Zawar believes that “epilepsy in itself impacts cognition.”
The researchers also didn’t have EEG data for study participants who were recruited from Alzheimer’s disease centers where EEGs aren’t routinely carried out, so such data for many patients may not necessarily exist, said Dr. Zawar.
Important Research
Commenting for this news organization, Bruce Hermann, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, said that the study is important because of the, “tremendous interest and concern about aging with epilepsy.”
“We want to know how people with chronic epilepsy age cognitively and what’s the cognitive course of those who have late onset epilepsy, particularly those with unknown etiology,” he added.
Dr. Hermann noted that much of the research in this area has been relatively small and single-center investigations.
“These larger-scale investigations from outside the epilepsy community are so important because they have data on large numbers of subjects, they have cognitive data, and follow-ups over long periods of time, and they’re providing some really novel information,” Dr. Hermann said.
He added that terms used in the dementia world such as MCI and frank dementia are somewhat foreign to epileptologists. In addition, interventions to delay, treat, or prevent cognitive decline such as exercise, diet, social activity, and mental stimulation that are regularly discussed by dementia experts are underrepresented in the epilepsy world.
“The things they talk about in memory clinics in the aging world almost routinely have not penetrated to the epilepsy clinics for aging individuals and for the epilepsy community in general.”
The study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify cognitive decline. “It would be nice to see how these people look with traditional neuropsychological tests,” said Dr. Hermann.
He added that information on the impact of epilepsy on different MCI phenotypes, for example, pure memory impairment subtype; pure nonmemory subtype; and multiple domain subtype, would also be useful.
The study was supported by the AES and the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Zawar and Dr. Hermann report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO — People with epilepsy are more likely to decline cognitively compared with those without epilepsy, new research suggests.
Results of the large, longitudinal study show that seizures predicted earlier conversion time from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) but were not associated with conversion from MCI to dementia.
“Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes need to be treated more aggressively because they can impact cognition, but epilepsy is another risk factor that needs to be treated in a timely fashion because it appears to be also associated with cognitive impairment,” said study investigator Ifrah Zawar MD, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
The study (abstract #2.172) was presented on December 2 at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
An Understudied Issue
Comorbid seizures occur in up to 64% of those with dementia, and patients with dementia and epilepsy have a more aggressive disease course, faster cognitive decline, and more severe neuronal loss, Dr. Zawar told Medscape Medical News.
But the impact of seizures on the conversion of cognitively healthy to MCI and from MCI to dementia, after accounting for cardiovascular risk factors, has not been well studied.
Researchers analyzed longitudinal data of 13,726 patients, mean age about 70 years, who were cognitively healthy or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were recruited from 39 Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) centers in the United States from 2005 to 2021.
Investigators categorized participants into three groups: active (having had seizures in the past year and/or requiring active treatment; N = 118), resolved (not on any treatment for the past year and not having seizures; N = 226), and no seizures (never having had seizures; N = 13,382).
The primary outcome was conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI/dementia and from MCI to dementia in those with and without active epilepsy and resolved epilepsy.
Factors associated with conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI among those with current or active epilepsy included older age (P <.001 for ages 60-80 years and P =.002 for age 80 years or older vs younger than 60 years), male sex (P <.001), lower education (P <.001), hypertension (P <.001), and diabetes (P <.001).
The hazard ratio (HR) for earlier conversion from healthy to worse cognition among those with active epilepsy was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.38-2.24; P <.001), even after accounting for risk factors.
Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to convert from healthy cognition to MCI among people with active epilepsy was about 5 years compared with about 9 years for those with resolved epilepsy and 10.5 years for those without epilepsy.
The story was similar for faster conversion from MCI to dementia. Compared with having no epilepsy, the HR for faster conversion for active epilepsy was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.20-1.73; P <.001).
In addition, the median time to conversion from MCI to dementia was about 3 years for those with active epilepsy compared with about 5 years for those with resolved epilepsy and about 5 years for those without epilepsy.
“It’s important for physicians to understand that uncontrolled epilepsy or active epilepsy is going to impact patients’ cognition adversely, which in itself is associated with increased comorbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Zawar.
The mechanism driving the acceleration to worse cognition in people with epilepsy is “complicated and involves a multitude of factors,” she said.
The researchers did not specifically investigate how use of antiseizure medications correlated with cognitive outcomes, but Dr. Zawar believes that “epilepsy in itself impacts cognition.”
The researchers also didn’t have EEG data for study participants who were recruited from Alzheimer’s disease centers where EEGs aren’t routinely carried out, so such data for many patients may not necessarily exist, said Dr. Zawar.
Important Research
Commenting for this news organization, Bruce Hermann, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, said that the study is important because of the, “tremendous interest and concern about aging with epilepsy.”
“We want to know how people with chronic epilepsy age cognitively and what’s the cognitive course of those who have late onset epilepsy, particularly those with unknown etiology,” he added.
Dr. Hermann noted that much of the research in this area has been relatively small and single-center investigations.
“These larger-scale investigations from outside the epilepsy community are so important because they have data on large numbers of subjects, they have cognitive data, and follow-ups over long periods of time, and they’re providing some really novel information,” Dr. Hermann said.
He added that terms used in the dementia world such as MCI and frank dementia are somewhat foreign to epileptologists. In addition, interventions to delay, treat, or prevent cognitive decline such as exercise, diet, social activity, and mental stimulation that are regularly discussed by dementia experts are underrepresented in the epilepsy world.
“The things they talk about in memory clinics in the aging world almost routinely have not penetrated to the epilepsy clinics for aging individuals and for the epilepsy community in general.”
The study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify cognitive decline. “It would be nice to see how these people look with traditional neuropsychological tests,” said Dr. Hermann.
He added that information on the impact of epilepsy on different MCI phenotypes, for example, pure memory impairment subtype; pure nonmemory subtype; and multiple domain subtype, would also be useful.
The study was supported by the AES and the Alzheimer’s Association.
Dr. Zawar and Dr. Hermann report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AES 2023
Anticoagulants Safe With Enzyme-Inducing Meds for Epilepsy
ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.
These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago.
The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.
The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
Important Implications
Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”
This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”
Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.
“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.
The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton.
Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs.
They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.
Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.
The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding
Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).
In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.
The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.
For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).
“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.
However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.
With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).
“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.
However, she cautioned that more research is needed.
As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
‘Really Great News’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.
“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.
The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.
While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.
However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.
He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.
Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”
The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.
These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago.
The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.
The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
Important Implications
Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”
This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”
Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.
“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.
The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton.
Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs.
They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.
Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.
The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding
Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).
In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.
The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.
For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).
“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.
However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.
With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).
“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.
However, she cautioned that more research is needed.
As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
‘Really Great News’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.
“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.
The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.
While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.
However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.
He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.
Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”
The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO — Combining an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) does not significantly increase the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with epilepsy, preliminary results of a new study show.
These new data are important, “particularly when we’re talking about a more global perspective, given the vital role of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications in epilepsy care across many middle- and low-income countries where they may be the only readily available treatment options,” said study investigator Emily K. Acton, PhD candidate in epidemiology and a medical student, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago.
The findings also suggest that use of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication with DOACs may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding events, although Ms. Acton stressed this requires more research.
The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
Important Implications
Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may induce key drug metabolizing enzymes that result in wide-ranging interactions, Ms. Acton told this news organization. “But, in many cases, the clinical significance of these pharmacokinetic interactions is not completely understood.”
This has important implications for managing anticoagulation, said Ms. Acton. “The ease of DOAC use, and growing evidence of the drugs’ safety and efficacy compared to vitamin K antagonists, has led to widespread shifts in clinical practice towards DOACs.”
Due to the relative novelty of DOACs, their interaction profiles have been less than complete, she explained. Evidence that enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications may reduce absorption and accelerate metabolism of DOACs, potentially lowering DOAC levels and elevating thromboembolism risk, comes mainly from in vitro and animal studies.
“Research in humans is lacking and complicated in interpretation by inconsistent findings and methodological limitations,” she said.
The investigators wanted to address the “clinical uncertainty” surrounding the real-world relevance of enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications and DOAC interactions but conducting a randomized trial “would be neither feasible nor ethical,” said Ms. Acton.
Using healthcare claims data from October 2010 to September 2021, the researchers conducted an active comparator, new-user cohort study among a nationally representative sample of adults with epilepsy who had been co-prescribed these drugs.
They compared thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates between exposure to DOACs with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications vs exposure to DOACs with non-enzyme inducing antiseizure medications.
Enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included in the study were carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and topiramate. Non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications included gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and pregabalin.
The researchers used data-adaptive high-dimensional propensity score matching to control for “hundreds and hundreds” of observed confounders, and proxies for unobserved confounders, said Ms. Acton. They identified outcomes based on validated diagnostic coding algorithms for thromboembolic and major bleeding events and estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) using Cox proportional hazard models with robust variance estimators to account for clustering within matched pairs.
Reduced Risk of Major Bleeding
Outcomes were analyzed in three separate cohorts. These included patients on DOACs for any indication (indication-agnostic); those on DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF); and those taking DOACs for deep vein thrombus/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE).
In the indication-agnostic analysis, the investigators examined thromboembolic events among 5989 episodes in patients taking both DOACs and enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications, compared witha reference group of 14,671 episodes in patients taking DOACs and non-enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications.
The reference group was generally older and had a greater prevalence of a number of major comorbidities compared with the exposed group, noted Ms. Acton.
For the indication-agnostic analysis, the aHR was 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39). Results were similar for the AF indication (aHR 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.46) and for the DVT/PE indication (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.81-1.51).
“This research provides large-scale, real-world evidence enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication use alongside DOACs does not significantly elevate risk of thromboembolic events among a nationally representative epilepsy population,” said Ms. Acton.
However, “it’s always important to consider risk factors for thromboembolic and bleeding events at the level of the individual patient,” she added.
With respect to major bleeding events, there was a slightly reduced risk in the exposed group, specifically in the analysis of subjects with atrial fibrillation, where the aHR was 0.63 (95% CI 0.44-0.89).
“A potential explanation may be pharmacokinetic interaction with enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications occurring to a degree that lowers DOAC levels without necessarily negating therapeutic effects,” said Ms. Acton.
However, she cautioned that more research is needed.
As for the differential potency among the various enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications studied, Ms. Acton said results from a secondary analysis in the atrial fibrillation assessment that removed the potentially less potent enzyme inducers, oxcarbazepine and topiramate, didn’t significantly change the study results.
‘Really Great News’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, epilepsy expert Daniel M. Goldenholz, MD, PhD, assistant professor of Neurology, Harvard Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, said the finding of no meaningful difference between DOAC plus enzyme-inducing medications vs DOACs plus non-enzyme-inducing medications is encouraging.
“This study asks a very important question at the population level and appropriately tries to control for present and hidden factors using a propensity matching approach,” he said.
The fact that the data support no difference in terms of thromboembolic events “is really great news” for patients taking an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication who need to use a DOAC, he said.
While some patients or clinicians might consider transitioning off an enzyme-inducing antiseizure medication, this can lead to new side effects and potentially higher drug costs. “Knowing that a transition may be unnecessary is exciting,” said Dr. Goldenholz.
However, he’s concerned the 1.5-year observation period may not be long enough to see a true effect of these drug combinations.
He also noted that due to the “theoretical higher risk,” patients combining DOACs with enzyme-inducing drugs typically need extra monitoring, which may be less practical outside the US. This suggests “the result may not necessarily generalize outside high-income countries,” he said.
Dr. Goldenholz emphasized that the data are preliminary. “As always, I look forward to a full peer-reviewed study before forming final conclusions.”
The study was supported by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Ms. Acton and Dr. Goldenholz report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AES 2023
Evidence Grows for SGLT2 Inhibitors in Rheumatology
Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.
“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.
But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential
The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”
As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”
These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.
A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).
What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).
“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.
Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.
Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key
How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.
For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.
“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”
Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”
In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed
Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.
Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).
“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”
Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”
However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.
“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.
As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?
According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.
Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.
In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.
She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”
Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”
As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.
“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.
She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”
In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”
As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”
As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.
“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”
Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.
Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.
“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.
But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential
The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”
As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”
These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.
A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).
What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).
“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.
Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.
Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key
How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.
For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.
“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”
Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”
In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed
Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.
Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).
“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”
Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”
However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.
“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.
As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?
According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.
Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.
In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.
She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”
Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”
As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.
“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.
She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”
In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”
As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”
As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.
“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”
Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.
Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.
“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.
But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential
The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”
As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”
These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.
A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).
What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).
“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.
Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.
Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key
How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.
For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.
“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”
Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”
In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed
Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.
Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).
“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”
Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”
However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.
“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.
As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?
According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.
Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.
In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.
She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”
Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”
As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.
“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.
She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”
In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”
As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”
As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.
“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”
Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.
ALL mortality gains bypass older adults
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
FROM ASH 2023
Expert Highlights Biologics in the Pipeline for Atopic Dermatitis
In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.
“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”
which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.
Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.
Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”
Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”
Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”
138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”
Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.
In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.
“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”
which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.
Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.
Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”
Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”
Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”
138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”
Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.
In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.
“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”
which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.
Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.
Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”
Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”
Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”
138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”
Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.
FROM RAD 2023