Latest News

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It was 1996, and Masashi Yanagisawa was on the brink of his next discovery.

The Japanese scientist had arrived at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas 5 years earlier, setting up his own lab at age 31. After earning his medical degree, he’d gained notoriety as a PhD student when he discovered endothelin, the body’s most potent vasoconstrictor.

Yanagisawa was about to prove this wasn’t a first-timer’s fluke.

His focus was G-protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs), cell surface receptors that respond to a range of molecules and a popular target for drug discovery. The Human Genome Project had just revealed a slew of newly discovered receptors, or “orphan” GPCRs, and identifying an activating molecule could yield a new drug. (That vasoconstrictor endothelin was one such success story, leading to four new drug approvals in the United States over the past quarter century.) 

Yanagisawa and his team created 50 cell lines, each expressing one orphan receptor. They applied animal tissue to every line, along with a calcium-sensitive dye. If the cells glowed under the microscope, they had a hit.

“He was basically doing an elaborate fishing expedition,” said Jon Willie, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, who would later join Yanagisawa’s team.

It wasn’t long before the neon-green fluorescence signaled a match. After isolating the activating molecule, the scientists realized they were dealing with two neuropeptides.

No one had ever seen these proteins before. And no one knew their discovery would set off a decades-long journey that would finally solve a century-old medical mystery — and may even fix one of the biggest health crises of our time, as revealed by research published earlier in 2024. It’s a story of strange coincidences, serendipitous discoveries, and quirky details. Most of all, it’s a fascinating example of how basic science can revolutionize medicine — and how true breakthroughs happen over time and in real time.

 

But That’s Basic Science for You

Most basic science studies — the early, foundational research that provides the building blocks for science that follows — don’t lead to medical breakthroughs. But some do, often in surprising ways.

Also called curiosity-driven research, basic science aims to fill knowledge gaps to keep science moving, even if the trajectory isn’t always clear.

“The people working on the basic research that led to discoveries that transformed the modern world had no idea at the time,” said Isobel Ronai, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in life sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Often, these stories can only be seen in hindsight,” sometimes decades later.

Case in point: For molecular biology techniques — things like DNA sequencing and gene targeting — the lag between basic science and breakthrough is, on average, 23 years. While many of the resulting techniques have received Nobel Prizes, few of the foundational discoveries have been awarded such accolades.

“The scientific glory is more often associated with the downstream applications,” said Ronai. “The importance of basic research can get lost. But it is the foundation for any future application, such as drug development.”

As funding is increasingly funneled toward applied research, basic science can require a certain persistence. What this under-appreciation can obscure is the pathway to discovery — which is often as compelling as the end result, full of unpredictable twists, turns, and even interpersonal intrigue.

And then there’s the fascinating — and definitely complicated — phenomenon of multiple independent discoveries.

As in: What happens when two independent teams discover the same thing at the same time?

 

Back to Yanagisawa’s Lab ...

... where he and his team learned a few things about those new neuropeptides. Rat brain studies pinpointed the lateral hypothalamus as the peptides’ area of activity — a region often called the brain’s feeding center.

“If you destroy that part of the brain, animals lose appetite,” said Yanagisawa. So these peptides must control feeding, the scientists thought.

Sure enough, injecting the proteins into rat brains led the rodents to start eating.

Satisfied, the team named them “orexin-A” and “orexin-B,” for the Greek word “orexis,” meaning appetite. The brain receptors became “orexin-1” and “orexin-2.” The team prepared to publish its findings in Cell.

But another group beat them to it.

 

Introducing the ‘Hypocretins’

In early January 1998, a team of Scripps Research Institute scientists, led by J. Gregor Sutcliffe, PhD, released a paper in the journal PNAS. They described a gene encoding for the precursor to two neuropeptides

As the peptides were in the hypothalamus and structurally like secretin (a gut hormone), they called them “hypocretins.” The hypocretin peptides excited neurons in the hypothalamus, and later that year, the scientists discovered that the neurons’ branches extended, tentacle-like, throughout the brain. “Many of the connected areas were involved in sleep-wake control,” said Thomas Kilduff, PhD, who joined the Sutcliffe lab just weeks before the hypocretin discovery. At the time, however, the significance of this finding was not yet clear.

Weeks later, in February 1998, Yanagisawa’s paper came out.

Somehow, two groups, over 1000 miles apart, had stumbled on the same neuropeptides at the same time.

“I first heard about [Yanagisawa’s] paper on NBC Nightly News,” recalls Kilduff. “I was skiing in the mountains, so I had to wait until Monday to get back to the lab to see what the paper was all about.”

He realized that Yanagisawa’s orexin was his lab’s hypocretin, although the study didn’t mention another team’s discovery.

“There may have been accusations. But as far as I know, it’s because [Yanagisawa] didn’t know [about the other paper],” said Willie. “This was not something he produced in 2 months. This was clearly years of work.” 

 

‘Multiple Discovery’ Happens More Often Than You Think

In the mid-20th century, sociologist Robert Merton described the phenomenon of “multiple discovery,” where many scientific discoveries or inventions are made independently at roughly the same time.

“This happens much more frequently in scientific research than people suppose,” said David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at Clarivate’s Institute for Scientific Information, the analytics company’s research arm. (Last year, Pendlebury flagged the hypocretin/orexin discovery for Clarivate’s prestigious Citations Laureates award, an honor that aims to predict, often successfully, who will go on to win the Nobel Prize.) 

“People have this idea of the lone researcher making a brilliant discovery,” Pendlebury said. “But more and more, teams find things at the same time.” 

While this can — and does — lead to squabbling about who deserves credit, the desire to be first can also be highly motivating, said Mike Schneider, PhD, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who studies the social dynamics of science, potentially leading to faster scientific advancement.

The downside? If two groups produce the same or similar results, but one publishes first, scientific journals tend to reject the second, citing a lack of novelty.

Yet duplicating research is a key step in confirming the validity of a discovery.

That’s why, in 2018, the journal PLOS Biology created a provision for “scooped” scientists, allowing them to submit their paper within 6 months of the first as a complementary finding. Instead of viewing this as redundancy, the editors believe it adds robustness to the research.

 

‘What the Heck Is This Mouse Doing?’

Even though he’d been scooped, Yanagisawa forged on to the next challenge: Confirming whether orexin regulated feeding.

He began breeding mice missing the orexin gene. His team expected these “knockout” mice to eat less, resulting in a thinner body than other rodents. To the contrary, “they were on average fatter,” said Willie. “They were eating less but weighed more, indicating a slower metabolism.”

The researchers were befuddled. “We were really disappointed, almost desperate about what to do,” said Yanagisawa.

As nocturnal animals eat more at night, he decided they should study the mice after dark. One of his students, Richard Chemelli, MD, bought an infrared video camera from Radio Shack, filming the first 4 hours of the mice’s active period for several nights.

After watching the footage, “Rick called me and said, ‘Let’s get into the lab,’ ” said Willie. “It was four of us on a Saturday looking at these videos, saying, ‘What the heck is this mouse doing?’ ”

While exploring their habitat, the knockout mice would randomly fall over, pop back up after a minute or so, and resume normal activity. This happened over and over — and the scientists were unsure why.

They began monitoring the mice’s brains during these episodes — and made a startling discovery.

The mice weren’t having seizures. They were shifting directly into REM sleep, bypassing the non-REM stage, then quickly toggling back to wake mode.

“That’s when we knew these animals had something akin to narcolepsy,” said Willie.

The team recruited Thomas Scammell, MD, a Harvard neurologist, to investigate whether modafinil — an anti-narcoleptic drug without a clear mechanism — affected orexin neurons.

Two hours after injecting the mice with the medication, the scientists sacrificed them and stained their brains. Remarkably, the number of neurons showing orexin activity had increased ninefold. It seemed modafinil worked by activating the orexin system.

These findings had the potential to crack open the science of narcolepsy, one of the most mysterious sleep disorders.

Unless, of course, another team did it first.

 

The Mystery of Narcolepsy

Yet another multiple discovery, narcolepsy was first described by two scientists — one in Germany, the other in France — within a short span in the late 1800s.

It would be more than a hundred years before anyone understood the disorder’s cause, even though it affects about 1 in 2000 people.

“Patients were often labeled as lazy and malingerers,” said Kilduff, “since they were sleepy all the time and had this weird motor behavior called cataplexy” or the sudden loss of muscle tone.

In the early 1970s, William Dement, MD, PhD — “the father of sleep medicine” — was searching for a narcoleptic cat to study. He couldn’t find a feline, but several colleagues mentioned dogs with narcolepsy-like symptoms.

Dement, who died in 2020, had found his newest research subjects.

In 1973, he started a narcoleptic dog colony at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. At first, he focused on poodles and beagles. After discovering their narcolepsy wasn’t genetic, he pivoted to dobermans and labradors. Their narcolepsy was inherited, so he could breed them to populate the colony.

Although human narcolepsy is rarely genetic, it’s otherwise a lot like the version in these dogs.

Both involve daytime sleepiness, “pathological” bouts of REM sleep, and the loss of muscle tone in response to emotions, often positive ones.

The researchers hoped the canines could unlock a treatment for human narcolepsy. They began laying out a path of dog kibble, then injecting the dogs with drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They wanted to see what might help them stay awake as they excitedly chowed down.

Kilduff also started a molecular genetics program, trying to identify the genetic defect behind canine narcolepsy. But after a parvovirus outbreak, Kilduff resigned from the project, drained from the strain of seeing so many dogs die.

A decade after his departure from the dog colony, his work would dramatically intersect with that of his successor, Emmanuel Mignot, MD, PhD.

“I thought I had closed the narcolepsy chapter in my life forever,” said Kilduff. “Then in 1998, we described this novel neuropeptide, hypocretin, that turned out to be the key to understanding the disorder.”

 

Narcoleptic Dogs in California, Mutant Mice in Texas

It was modafinil — the same anti-narcoleptic drug Yanagisawa’s team studied — that brought Emmanuel Mignot to the United States. After training as a pharmacologist in France, his home country sent him to Stanford to study the drug, which was discovered by French scientists, as his required military service.

As Kilduff’s replacement at the dog colony, his goal was to figure out how modafinil worked, hoping to attract a US company to develop the drug.

The plan succeeded. Modafinil became Provigil, a billion-dollar narcolepsy drug, and Mignot became “completely fascinated” with the disorder.

“I realized quickly that there was no way we’d find the cause of narcolepsy by finding the mode of action of this drug,” Mignot said. “Most likely, the drug was acting downstream, not at the cause of the disorder.”

To discover the answer, he needed to become a geneticist. And so began his 11-year odyssey to find the cause of canine narcolepsy.

After mapping the dog genome, Mignot set out to find the smallest stretch of chromosome that the narcoleptic animals had in common. “For a very long time, we were stuck with a relatively large region [of DNA],” he recalls. “It was a no man’s land.” 

Within that region was the gene for the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor — the same receptor that Yanagisawa had identified in his first orexin paper. Mignot didn’t immediately pursue that gene as a possibility — even though his students suggested it. Why?

“The decision was simply: Should we lose time to test a possible candidate [gene] among many?” Mignot said.

As Mignot studied dog DNA in California, Yanagisawa was creating mutant mice in Texas. Unbeknownst to either scientist, their work was about to converge.

 

What Happened Next Is Somewhat Disputed 

After diagnosing his mice with narcolepsy, Yanagisawa opted not to share this finding with Mignot, though he knew about Mignot’s interest in the condition. Instead, he asked a colleague to find out how far along Mignot was in his genetics research.

According to Yanagisawa, his colleague didn’t realize how quickly DNA sequencing could happen once a target gene was identified. At a sleep meeting, “he showed Emmanuel all of our raw data. Almost accidentally, he disclosed our findings,” he said. “It was a shock for me.” 

Unsure whether he was part of the orexin group, Mignot decided not to reveal that he’d identified the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the faulty one in his narcoleptic dogs.

Although he didn’t share this finding, Mignot said he did offer to speak with the lead researcher to see if their findings were the same. If they were, they could jointly submit their articles. But Mignot never heard back.

Meanwhile, back at his lab, Mignot buckled down. While he wasn’t convinced the mouse data proved anything, it did give him the motivation to move faster.

Within weeks, he submitted his findings to Cell, revealing a mutation in the hypocretin/orexin-2 receptor gene as the cause of canine narcolepsy. According to Yanagisawa, the journal’s editor invited him to peer-review the paper, tipping him off to its existence.

“I told him I had a conflict of interest,” said Yanagisawa. “And then we scrambled to finish our manuscript. We wrote up the paper within almost 5 days.”

For a moment, it seemed both papers would be published together in Cell. Instead, on August 6, 1999, Mignot’s study was splashed solo across the journal’s cover.

“At the time, our team was pissed off, but looking back, what else could Emmanuel have done?” said Willie, who was part of Yanagisawa’s team. “The grant he’d been working on for years was at risk. He had it within his power to do the final experiments. Of course he was going to finish.”

Two weeks later, Yanagisawa’s findings followed, also in Cell.

His paper proposed knockout mice as a model for human narcolepsy and orexin as a key regulator of the sleep/wake cycle. With orexin-activated neurons branching into other areas of the brain, the peptide seemed to promote wakefulness by synchronizing several arousal neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, norepinephrine, and histamine.

“If you don’t have orexin, each of those systems can still function, but they’re not as coordinated,” said Willie. “If you have narcolepsy, you’re capable of wakefulness, and you’re capable of sleep. What you can’t do is prevent inappropriately switching between states.”

Together, the two papers painted a clear picture: Narcolepsy was the result of a dysfunction in the hypocretin/orexin system.

After more than a century, the cause of narcolepsy was starting to come into focus.

“This was blockbuster,” said Willie.

By itself, either finding — one in dogs, one in mice — might have been met with skepticism. But in combination, they offered indisputable evidence about narcolepsy’s cause.

 

The Human Brains in Your Fridge Hold Secrets

Jerome Siegel had been searching for the cause of human narcolepsy for years. A PhD and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, he had managed to acquire four human narcoleptic brains. As laughter is often the trigger for the sudden shift to REM sleep in humans, he focused on the amygdala, an area linked to emotion.

“I looked in the amygdala and didn’t see anything,” he said. “So the brains stayed in my refrigerator for probably 10 years.” 

Then he was invited to review Yanagisawa’s study in Cell. The lightbulb clicked on: Maybe the hypothalamus — not the amygdala — was the area of abnormality. He and his team dug out the decade-old brains.

When they stained the brains, the massive loss of hypocretin-activated neurons was hard to miss: On average, the narcoleptic brains had only about 7000 of the cells versus 70,000 in the average human brain. The scientists also noticed scar tissue in the hypothalamus, indicating that the neurons had at some point died, rather than being absent from birth.

What Siegel didn’t know: Mignot had also acquired a handful of human narcoleptic brains.

Already, he had coauthored a study showing that hypocretin/orexin was undetectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of the majority of the people with narcolepsy his team tested. It seemed clear that the hypocretin/orexin system was flawed — or even broken — in people with the condition.

“It looked like the cause of narcolepsy in humans was indeed this lack of orexin in the brain,” he said. “That was the hypothesis immediately. To me, this is when we established that narcolepsy in humans was due to a lack of orexin. The next thing was to check that the cells were missing.” 

Now he could do exactly that.

As expected, Mignot’s team observed a dramatic loss of hypocretin/orexin cells in the narcoleptic brains. They also noticed that a different cell type in the hypothalamus was unaffected. This implied the damage was specific to the hypocretin-activated cells and supported a hunch they already had: That the deficit was the result not of a genetic defect but of an autoimmune attack. (It’s a hypothesis Mignot has spent the last 15 years proving.)

It wasn’t until a gathering in Hawaii, in late August 2000, that the two realized the overlap of their work.

To celebrate his team’s finding, Mignot had invited a group of researchers to Big Island. With his paper scheduled for publication on September 1, he felt comfortable presenting his findings to his guests, which included Siegel.

Until then, “I didn’t know what he had found, and he didn’t know what I had found, which basically was the same thing,” said Siegel.

In yet another strange twist, the two papers were published just weeks apart, simultaneously revealing that human narcoleptics have a depleted supply of the neurons that bind to hypocretin/orexin. The cause of the disorder was at last a certainty.

“Even if I was first, what does it matter? In the end, you need confirmation,” said Mignot. “You need multiple people to make sure that it’s true. It’s good science when things like this happen.”

 

How All of This Changed Medicine

Since these groundbreaking discoveries, the diagnosis of narcolepsy has become much simpler. Lab tests can now easily measure hypocretin in cerebrospinal fluid, providing a definitive diagnosis.

But the development of narcolepsy treatments has lagged — even though hypocretin/orexin replacement therapy is the obvious answer.

“Almost 25 years have elapsed, and there’s no such therapeutic on the market,” said Kilduff, who now works for SRI International, a non-profit research and development institute.

That’s partly because agonists — drugs that bind to receptors in the brain — are challenging to create, as this requires mimicking the activating molecule’s structure, like copying the grooves of an intricate key.

Antagonists, by comparison, are easier to develop. These act as a gate, blocking access to the receptors. As a result, drugs that promote sleep by thwarting hypocretin/orexin have emerged more quickly, providing a flurry of new options for people with insomnia. The first, suvorexant, was launched in 2014. Two others followed in recent years.

Researchers are hopeful a hypocretin/orexin agonist is on the horizon.

“This is a very hot area of drug development,” said Kilduff. “It’s just a matter of who’s going to get the drug to market first.”

 

One More Hypocretin/Orexin Surprise — and It Could Be The Biggest

Several years ago, Siegel’s lab received what was supposed to be a healthy human brain — one they could use as a comparison for narcoleptic brains. But researcher Thomas Thannickal, PhD, lead author of the UCLA study linking hypocretin loss to human narcolepsy, noticed something strange: This brain had significantly more hypocretin neurons than average.

Was this due to a seizure? A traumatic death? Siegel called the brain bank to request the donor’s records. He was told they were missing.

Years later, Siegel happened to be visiting the brain bank for another project and found himself in a room adjacent to the medical records. “Nobody was there,” he said, “so I just opened a drawer.”

Shuffling through the brain bank’s files, Siegel found the medical records he’d been told were lost. In the file was a note from the donor, explaining that he was a former heroin addict.

“I almost fell out of my chair,” said Siegel. “I realized this guy’s heroin addiction likely had something to do with his very unusual brain.” 

Obviously, opioids affected the orexin system. But how? 

“It’s when people are happy that this peptide is released,” said Siegel. “The hypocretin system is not just related to alertness. It’s related to pleasure.” 

As Yanagisawa observed early on, hypocretin/orexin does indeed play a role in eating — just not the one he initially thought. The peptides prompted pleasure seeking. So the rodents ate. 

In 2018, after acquiring five more brains, Siegel’s group published a study in Translational Medicine showing 54% more detectable hypocretin neurons in the brains of heroin addicts than in those of control individuals.

In 2022, another breakthrough: His team showed that morphine significantly altered the pathways of hypocretin neurons in mice, sending their axons into brain regions associated with addiction. Then, when they removed the mice’s hypocretin neurons and discontinued their daily morphine dose, the rodents showed no symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

This fits the connection with narcolepsy: Among the standard treatments for the condition are amphetamines and other stimulants, which all have addictive potential. Yet, “narcoleptics never abuse these drugs,” Siegel said. “They seem to be uniquely resistant to addiction.”

This could powerfully change the way opioids are administered.

“If you prevent the hypocretin response to opioids, you may be able to prevent opioid addiction,” said Siegel. In other words, blocking the hypocretin system with a drug like those used to treat insomnia may allow patients to experience the pain-relieving benefits of opioids — without the risk for addiction.

His team is currently investigating treatments targeting the hypocretin/orexin system for opioid addiction.

In a study published in July, they found that mice who received suvorexant — the drug for insomnia — didn’t anticipate their daily dose of opioids the way other rodents did. This suggests the medication prevented addiction, without diminishing the pain-relieving effect of opioids.

If it translates to humans, this discovery could potentially save millions of lives.

“I think it’s just us working on this,” said Siegel.

But with hypocretin/orexin, you never know.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), is not associated with an increased risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network to investigate the potential risk for NAION associated with semaglutide use in a broader population worldwide.
• They included Caucasians aged ≥ 18 years with only type 2 diabetes (n = 37,245) , only obesity (n = 138,391), or both (n = 64,989) who visited healthcare facilities three or more times.
• The participants were further grouped into those prescribed semaglutide and those using non–GLP-1 RA medications.
• Propensity score matching was performed to balance age, sex, body mass index, A1C levels, medications, and underlying comorbidities between the participants using semaglutide or non–GLP-1 RAs.
• The main outcome measure was the occurrence of NAION, evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of semaglutide vs non–GLP-1 RAs was not associated with an increased risk for NAION in people with only type 2 diabetes during the 1-year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 0.60-8.97), 2-year (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86-6.17), and 3-year (HR, 1.51; 0.71-3.25) follow-up periods.
• Similarly, in the obesity-only cohort, use of semaglutide was not linked to the development of NAION across 1-year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-2.09), 2-year (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.24), and 3-year (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24-2.17) follow-up periods.
• The patients with both diabetes and obesity also showed no significant association between use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION across each follow-up period.
• Sensitivity analysis confirmed the prescription of semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk for NAION compared with non–GLP-1 RA medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our large, multinational, population-based, real-world study found that semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of NAION in the general population,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chien-Chih Chou, MD, PhD, of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, in Taipei City, Taiwan, and was published online on November 02, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between the use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION. The reliance on diagnosis coding for NAION may have introduced a potential misclassification of cases. Moreover, approximately half of the healthcare organizations in the TriNetX network are based in the United States, potentially limiting the diversity of the data.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

The use of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), is not associated with an increased risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network to investigate the potential risk for NAION associated with semaglutide use in a broader population worldwide.
• They included Caucasians aged ≥ 18 years with only type 2 diabetes (n = 37,245) , only obesity (n = 138,391), or both (n = 64,989) who visited healthcare facilities three or more times.
• The participants were further grouped into those prescribed semaglutide and those using non–GLP-1 RA medications.
• Propensity score matching was performed to balance age, sex, body mass index, A1C levels, medications, and underlying comorbidities between the participants using semaglutide or non–GLP-1 RAs.
• The main outcome measure was the occurrence of NAION, evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of semaglutide vs non–GLP-1 RAs was not associated with an increased risk for NAION in people with only type 2 diabetes during the 1-year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 0.60-8.97), 2-year (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86-6.17), and 3-year (HR, 1.51; 0.71-3.25) follow-up periods.
• Similarly, in the obesity-only cohort, use of semaglutide was not linked to the development of NAION across 1-year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-2.09), 2-year (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.24), and 3-year (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24-2.17) follow-up periods.
• The patients with both diabetes and obesity also showed no significant association between use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION across each follow-up period.
• Sensitivity analysis confirmed the prescription of semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk for NAION compared with non–GLP-1 RA medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our large, multinational, population-based, real-world study found that semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of NAION in the general population,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chien-Chih Chou, MD, PhD, of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, in Taipei City, Taiwan, and was published online on November 02, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between the use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION. The reliance on diagnosis coding for NAION may have introduced a potential misclassification of cases. Moreover, approximately half of the healthcare organizations in the TriNetX network are based in the United States, potentially limiting the diversity of the data.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

The use of semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), is not associated with an increased risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) in patients with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the TriNetX Analytics Network to investigate the potential risk for NAION associated with semaglutide use in a broader population worldwide.
• They included Caucasians aged ≥ 18 years with only type 2 diabetes (n = 37,245) , only obesity (n = 138,391), or both (n = 64,989) who visited healthcare facilities three or more times.
• The participants were further grouped into those prescribed semaglutide and those using non–GLP-1 RA medications.
• Propensity score matching was performed to balance age, sex, body mass index, A1C levels, medications, and underlying comorbidities between the participants using semaglutide or non–GLP-1 RAs.
• The main outcome measure was the occurrence of NAION, evaluated at 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of semaglutide vs non–GLP-1 RAs was not associated with an increased risk for NAION in people with only type 2 diabetes during the 1-year (hazard ratio [HR], 2.32; 95% CI, 0.60-8.97), 2-year (HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 0.86-6.17), and 3-year (HR, 1.51; 0.71-3.25) follow-up periods.
• Similarly, in the obesity-only cohort, use of semaglutide was not linked to the development of NAION across 1-year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-2.09), 2-year (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.24), and 3-year (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24-2.17) follow-up periods.
• The patients with both diabetes and obesity also showed no significant association between use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION across each follow-up period.
• Sensitivity analysis confirmed the prescription of semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk for NAION compared with non–GLP-1 RA medications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our large, multinational, population-based, real-world study found that semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of NAION in the general population,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chien-Chih Chou, MD, PhD, of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, in Taipei City, Taiwan, and was published online on November 02, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study may have limited the ability to establish causality between the use of semaglutide and the risk for NAION. The reliance on diagnosis coding for NAION may have introduced a potential misclassification of cases. Moreover, approximately half of the healthcare organizations in the TriNetX network are based in the United States, potentially limiting the diversity of the data.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from Taichung Veterans General Hospital. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), such as carbonated drinks, processed meats, and sweet or savory packaged snacks, is associated with accelerated biological aging, as measured by 36 blood-based biomarkers, and factors other than poor nutritional content may be to blame.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have reported an association between high consumption of UPFs and some measures of early biological aging, such as shorter telomere length, cognitive decline, and frailty, but the relationship is largely unexplored so far, including exactly how UPFs may harm health.
• To examine the association between UPF consumption and biological aging, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 22,495 participants (mean chronological age, 55.6 years; 52% women) from the Moli-sani Study in Italy, who were recruited between 2005 and 2010.
• Food intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire that covered 188 different food items, each of which was categorized into one of four groups based on the extent of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat and fish, to UPFs.
• UPF intake was determined by weight, using the ratio of UPFs to the total weight of food and beverages (g/d), and participants were categorized into sex-specific fifths according to the proportion of UPFs in their total food intake. Diet quality was also evaluated using the Mediterranean Diet Score.
• Biological age was computed using a deep neural network approach based on 36 circulating blood biomarkers, and the mean difference between the mean biological and chronological ages was analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean difference between biological and chronological ages of the participants was –0.70 years.
• Higher intake of UPFs was associated with accelerated biological aging compared with the lowest intake (regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), with a mean difference between the biological and chronological ages of −4.1 years and 1.6 years in those with the lowest and highest intakes, respectively.
• The association between UPF consumption and biological aging was nonlinear (P = .049 for nonlinearity). The association tended to be stronger in men than in women, but this was not statistically significant.
• Including the Mediterranean Diet Score in the model slightly attenuated the association by 9.1%, indicating that poor nutritional content was likely to explain a small part of the underlying mechanism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results showed that the UPFs–biological aging association was weakly explained by the poor nutritional composition of these highly processed foods, suggesting that biological aging could be mainly influenced by non-nutrient food characteristics, which include altered food matrix, contact materials and neo-formed compounds,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Esposito, Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Isernia, Italy. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to determine the temporal directionality of the association, and the observational nature of the study limited the ability to establish the causality between UPF consumption and biological aging. The use of self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias. The study population was limited to adults from Central-Southern Italy, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was developed within the project funded by the Next Generation European Union “Age-It — Ageing well in an ageing society” project, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The analyses were partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), such as carbonated drinks, processed meats, and sweet or savory packaged snacks, is associated with accelerated biological aging, as measured by 36 blood-based biomarkers, and factors other than poor nutritional content may be to blame.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have reported an association between high consumption of UPFs and some measures of early biological aging, such as shorter telomere length, cognitive decline, and frailty, but the relationship is largely unexplored so far, including exactly how UPFs may harm health.
• To examine the association between UPF consumption and biological aging, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 22,495 participants (mean chronological age, 55.6 years; 52% women) from the Moli-sani Study in Italy, who were recruited between 2005 and 2010.
• Food intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire that covered 188 different food items, each of which was categorized into one of four groups based on the extent of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat and fish, to UPFs.
• UPF intake was determined by weight, using the ratio of UPFs to the total weight of food and beverages (g/d), and participants were categorized into sex-specific fifths according to the proportion of UPFs in their total food intake. Diet quality was also evaluated using the Mediterranean Diet Score.
• Biological age was computed using a deep neural network approach based on 36 circulating blood biomarkers, and the mean difference between the mean biological and chronological ages was analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean difference between biological and chronological ages of the participants was –0.70 years.
• Higher intake of UPFs was associated with accelerated biological aging compared with the lowest intake (regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), with a mean difference between the biological and chronological ages of −4.1 years and 1.6 years in those with the lowest and highest intakes, respectively.
• The association between UPF consumption and biological aging was nonlinear (P = .049 for nonlinearity). The association tended to be stronger in men than in women, but this was not statistically significant.
• Including the Mediterranean Diet Score in the model slightly attenuated the association by 9.1%, indicating that poor nutritional content was likely to explain a small part of the underlying mechanism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results showed that the UPFs–biological aging association was weakly explained by the poor nutritional composition of these highly processed foods, suggesting that biological aging could be mainly influenced by non-nutrient food characteristics, which include altered food matrix, contact materials and neo-formed compounds,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Esposito, Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Isernia, Italy. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to determine the temporal directionality of the association, and the observational nature of the study limited the ability to establish the causality between UPF consumption and biological aging. The use of self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias. The study population was limited to adults from Central-Southern Italy, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was developed within the project funded by the Next Generation European Union “Age-It — Ageing well in an ageing society” project, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The analyses were partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), such as carbonated drinks, processed meats, and sweet or savory packaged snacks, is associated with accelerated biological aging, as measured by 36 blood-based biomarkers, and factors other than poor nutritional content may be to blame.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have reported an association between high consumption of UPFs and some measures of early biological aging, such as shorter telomere length, cognitive decline, and frailty, but the relationship is largely unexplored so far, including exactly how UPFs may harm health.
• To examine the association between UPF consumption and biological aging, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 22,495 participants (mean chronological age, 55.6 years; 52% women) from the Moli-sani Study in Italy, who were recruited between 2005 and 2010.
• Food intake was assessed with a food frequency questionnaire that covered 188 different food items, each of which was categorized into one of four groups based on the extent of processing, ranging from minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat and fish, to UPFs.
• UPF intake was determined by weight, using the ratio of UPFs to the total weight of food and beverages (g/d), and participants were categorized into sex-specific fifths according to the proportion of UPFs in their total food intake. Diet quality was also evaluated using the Mediterranean Diet Score.
• Biological age was computed using a deep neural network approach based on 36 circulating blood biomarkers, and the mean difference between the mean biological and chronological ages was analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean difference between biological and chronological ages of the participants was –0.70 years.
• Higher intake of UPFs was associated with accelerated biological aging compared with the lowest intake (regression coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-0.61), with a mean difference between the biological and chronological ages of −4.1 years and 1.6 years in those with the lowest and highest intakes, respectively.
• The association between UPF consumption and biological aging was nonlinear (P = .049 for nonlinearity). The association tended to be stronger in men than in women, but this was not statistically significant.
• Including the Mediterranean Diet Score in the model slightly attenuated the association by 9.1%, indicating that poor nutritional content was likely to explain a small part of the underlying mechanism.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results showed that the UPFs–biological aging association was weakly explained by the poor nutritional composition of these highly processed foods, suggesting that biological aging could be mainly influenced by non-nutrient food characteristics, which include altered food matrix, contact materials and neo-formed compounds,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Esposito, Research Unit of Epidemiology and Prevention, IRCCS Neuromed, Isernia, Italy. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to determine the temporal directionality of the association, and the observational nature of the study limited the ability to establish the causality between UPF consumption and biological aging. The use of self-reported dietary data may have introduced recall bias. The study population was limited to adults from Central-Southern Italy, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was developed within the project funded by the Next Generation European Union “Age-It — Ageing well in an ageing society” project, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The analyses were partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who discontinue treatment with the osteoporosis drug denosumab, despite transitioning to zoledronate, show significant losses in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) within a year, according to the latest findings to show that the rapid rebound of bone loss after denosumab discontinuation is not easily prevented with other therapies — even bisphosphonates.

“When initiating denosumab for osteoporosis treatment, it is recommended to engage in thorough shared decision-making with the patient to ensure they understand the potential risks associated with discontinuing the medication,” senior author Shau-Huai Fu, MD, PhD, Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Douliu, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “integrating a case manager system is crucial to support long-term adherence and compliance,” he added.

The results are from the Denosumab Sequential Therapy prospective, open-label, parallel-group randomized clinical trial, published online in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, 101 patients were recruited between April 2019 and May 2021 at a referral center and two hospitals in Taiwan. The patients, including postmenopausal women and men over the age of 50, had been treated with regular denosumab for at least 2 years and had no previous exposure to other anti-osteoporosis medication.

They were randomized to treatment either with continuous denosumab at the standard dose of 60 mg twice yearly or to discontinue denosumab and receive the standard intravenous dose of the bisphosphonate zoledronate at 5 mg at the time when the next dose of denosumab would have been administered.

There were no differences between the two groups in serum bone turnover markers at baseline.

The current results, reflecting the first year of the 2-year study, show that, overall, those receiving zoledronate (n = 76), had a significant decrease in lumbar spine BMD, compared with a slight increase in the denosumab continuation group (–0.68% vs 1.30%, respectively; P = .03).

No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the study’s other measures of total hip BMD (median, 0% vs 1.12%; P = .24), and femoral neck BMD (median, 0.18% vs 0.17%; P = .71).

Additional findings from multivariable analyses in the study also supported results from previous studies showing that a longer duration of denosumab use is associated with a more substantial rebound effect: Among 15 of the denosumab users in the study who had ≥ 3 prior years of the drug, the reduction in lumbar spine BMD was even greater with zoledronate compared with denosumab continuation (–3.20% vs 1.30%; P = .003).

Though the lack of losses in the other measures of total hip and femoral neck BMD may seem encouraging, evidence from the bulk of other studies suggests cautious interpretation of those findings, Fu said.

“Although our study did not observe a noticeable decline in total hip or femoral neck BMD, other randomized controlled trials with longer durations of denosumab use have reported significant reductions in these areas,” Fu said. “Therefore, it cannot be assumed that non-lumbar spine regions are entirely safe.”

 

Fracture Risk Is the Overriding Concern

Meanwhile, the loss of lumbar spine BMD is of particular concern because of its role in what amounts to the broader, overriding concern of denosumab discontinuation — the risk for fracture, Fu noted.

“Real-world observations indicate that fractures caused by or associated with discontinuation of denosumab primarily occur in the spine,” he explained.

Previous research underscores the risk for fracture with denosumab discontinuation — and the greater risk with longer-term denosumab use, showing an 11.8% annual incidence of vertebral fracture after discontinuation of denosumab used for less than 2 years, increasing to 16.0% upon discontinuation after more than 2 years of treatment.

Randomized trials have shown sequential zoledronate to have some benefit in offsetting that risk, reducing first-year fracture risk by 3%-4% in some studies.

In the current study, 3 of 76 participants experienced a vertebral fracture in the first year of discontinuation, all involving women, including 2 who had been receiving denosumab for ≥ 4 years before medication transition.

If a transition to a bisphosphonate is anticipated, the collective findings suggest doing it as early on in denosumab treatment as possible, Fu and his colleagues noted in the study.

“When medication transition from denosumab is expected or when long-term denosumab treatment may not be suitable, earlier medication transition with potent sequential therapy should be considered,” they wrote.

 

Dosing Adjustments?

The findings add to the evidence that “patients who gain the most with denosumab are likely to lose the most with zoledronate,” Nelson Watts, MD, who authored an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization.

Furthermore, “denosumab and other medications seem to do more [and faster] for BMD in the spine, so we expect more loss in the spine than in the hip,” said Watts, who is director of Mercy Health Osteoporosis and Bone Health Services, Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Studies are needed but not yet done to see if a higher dose or more frequent zoledronate would be better for BMD than the ‘usual’ yearly dose,” Watts added.

The only published clinical recommendations on the matter are discussed in a position paper from the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).

“Pending additional robust data, a pragmatic approach is to begin treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection and monitor the effect with bone turnover markers, for example, 3 and 6 months after the zoledronate infusion,” they recommended.

In cases of increased bone turnover markers, including above the mean found in age- and sex-matched cohorts, “repeated infusion of zoledronate should be considered,” the society added.

If bone turnover markers are not available for monitoring the patients, “a pragmatic approach could be administrating a second infusion of zoledronate 6 months after the first infusion,” they wrote.

 

Clinicians Need to Be Proactive From the Start

Bente Langdahl, MD, of the Medical Department of Endocrinology, Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark, who was a coauthor on the ECTS position statement, told this news organization that clinicians should also be proactive on the other side of treatment — before it begins — to prevent problems with discontinuation.

“I think denosumab is a very good treatment for some patients with high fracture risk and very low BMD, but both patients and clinicians should know that this treatment is either lifelong or there needs to be a plan for discontinuation,” Langdahl said.

Langdahl noted that denosumab is coming off patent soon; hence, issues with cost could become more manageable.

But until then, “I think [cost] should be considered before starting treatment because if patients cannot afford denosumab, they should have been started on zoledronate from the beginning.”

 

Discontinuation Reasons Vary

Research indicates that, broadly, adherence to denosumab ranges from about 45% to 72% at 2 years, with some reasons for discontinuation including the need for dental treatment or cost, Fu and colleagues reported.

Fu added, however, that other reasons for discontinuing denosumab “are not due to ‘need’ but rather factors such as relocating, missing follow-up appointments, or poor adherence.”

Lorenz Hofbauer, MD, who is head of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Bone Diseases, Department of Medicine III at the Technical University Medical Center in Dresden, Germany, noted that another issue contributing to some hesitation by patients about remaining on, or even initiating denosumab, is the known risk for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ).

Though reported as being rare, research continuing to stir concern for ONJ with denosumab use includes one recent study of patients with breast cancer showing those treated with denosumab had a fivefold higher risk for ONJ vs those on bisphosphonates.

“About 20% of my patients have ONJ concerns or other questions, which may delay treatment with denosumab or other therapies,” Hofbauer told this news organization.

“There is a high need to discuss risk versus benefits toward a shared decision-making,” he said.

Conversely, however, Hofbauer noted that adherence to denosumab at his center is fairly high — at 90%, which he says is largely credited to an electronically supported recall system in place at the center.

Denosumab maker Amgen also offers patient reminders via email, text, or phone through its Bone Matters patient support system, which also provides access to a call center for questions or to update treatment appointment information.

In terms of the ongoing question of how to best prevent fracture risk when patients do wind up discontinuing denosumab, Watts concluded in his editorial that more robust studies are needed.

“The dilemma is what to do with longer-term users who stop, and the real question is not what happens to BMD, but what happens to fracture risk,” he wrote.

“It is unlikely that the fracture risk question can be answered due to ethical limitations, but finding the best option, [whether it is] oral or intravenous bisphosphonate, timing, dose, and frequency, to minimize bone loss and the rebound increase in bone resorption after stopping long-term denosumab requires larger and longer studies of better design.”

The authors had no disclosures to report. Watts has been an investigator, consultant, and speaker for Amgen outside of the published editorial. Hofbauer is on advisory boards for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Amolyt Pharma, Amgen, and UCB. Langdahl has been a primary investigator on previous and ongoing clinical trials involving denosumab.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A case series highlights the features of severe, necrotic skin wounds among hospitalized adults associated with xylazine exposure, including 9% that involved exposed deep structures such as bone or tendon.

METHODOLOGY:

• The alpha-2 agonist xylazine, a veterinary sedative, is increasingly detected in fentanyl used illicitly in the United States and may be causing necrotizing wounds in drug users.
• To characterize specific clinical features of xylazine-associated wounds, researchers conducted a case series at three academic medical hospitals in Philadelphia from April 2022 to February 2023.
• They included 29 patients with confirmed xylazine exposure and a chief complaint that was wound-related, seen as inpatients or in the emergency department.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 29 patients (mean age, 39.4 years; 52% men) had a total of 59 wounds, 90% were located on the arms and legs, and 69% were on the posterior upper or anterior lower extremities. Five wounds (9%) involved exposed deep structures such as the bone or tendon.
• Of the 57 wounds with available photographs, 60% had wound beds with predominantly devitalized tissue (eschar or slough), 11% were blisters, 9% had granulation tissue, and 21% had mixed tissue or other types of wound beds. Devitalized tissue was more commonly observed in medium or large wounds (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .02) than in small wounds.
• As reported by patients, 48% were acute wounds, 20% were subacute, and 29% were chronic (present for 3 months or longer). Subacute and chronic wounds were often medium or large compared with acute wounds (OR, 48.5; P < .001) and contained devitalized tissue (OR, 9.5; P < .001).
• Of the 39 wounds with patient-reported etiology, 34 (87%) occurred at drug injection sites.

IN PRACTICE:

To the best of their knowledge, this is “the largest study of wounds among patients with confirmed exposure to xylazine and the first to systematically describe wound characteristics,” the authors wrote. The results, they concluded, “may help identify xylazine exposure and can guide research on the etiology and management of these wounds.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Lydia Lutz, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and coinvestigators and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This single-city, retrospective study limited generalizability, and the selection of the largest wounds may bias results. Additionally, chronicity data relied on patient recall, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for the study. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

A case series highlights the features of severe, necrotic skin wounds among hospitalized adults associated with xylazine exposure, including 9% that involved exposed deep structures such as bone or tendon.

METHODOLOGY:

• The alpha-2 agonist xylazine, a veterinary sedative, is increasingly detected in fentanyl used illicitly in the United States and may be causing necrotizing wounds in drug users.
• To characterize specific clinical features of xylazine-associated wounds, researchers conducted a case series at three academic medical hospitals in Philadelphia from April 2022 to February 2023.
• They included 29 patients with confirmed xylazine exposure and a chief complaint that was wound-related, seen as inpatients or in the emergency department.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 29 patients (mean age, 39.4 years; 52% men) had a total of 59 wounds, 90% were located on the arms and legs, and 69% were on the posterior upper or anterior lower extremities. Five wounds (9%) involved exposed deep structures such as the bone or tendon.
• Of the 57 wounds with available photographs, 60% had wound beds with predominantly devitalized tissue (eschar or slough), 11% were blisters, 9% had granulation tissue, and 21% had mixed tissue or other types of wound beds. Devitalized tissue was more commonly observed in medium or large wounds (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .02) than in small wounds.
• As reported by patients, 48% were acute wounds, 20% were subacute, and 29% were chronic (present for 3 months or longer). Subacute and chronic wounds were often medium or large compared with acute wounds (OR, 48.5; P < .001) and contained devitalized tissue (OR, 9.5; P < .001).
• Of the 39 wounds with patient-reported etiology, 34 (87%) occurred at drug injection sites.

IN PRACTICE:

To the best of their knowledge, this is “the largest study of wounds among patients with confirmed exposure to xylazine and the first to systematically describe wound characteristics,” the authors wrote. The results, they concluded, “may help identify xylazine exposure and can guide research on the etiology and management of these wounds.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Lydia Lutz, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and coinvestigators and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This single-city, retrospective study limited generalizability, and the selection of the largest wounds may bias results. Additionally, chronicity data relied on patient recall, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for the study. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

A case series highlights the features of severe, necrotic skin wounds among hospitalized adults associated with xylazine exposure, including 9% that involved exposed deep structures such as bone or tendon.

METHODOLOGY:

• The alpha-2 agonist xylazine, a veterinary sedative, is increasingly detected in fentanyl used illicitly in the United States and may be causing necrotizing wounds in drug users.
• To characterize specific clinical features of xylazine-associated wounds, researchers conducted a case series at three academic medical hospitals in Philadelphia from April 2022 to February 2023.
• They included 29 patients with confirmed xylazine exposure and a chief complaint that was wound-related, seen as inpatients or in the emergency department.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 29 patients (mean age, 39.4 years; 52% men) had a total of 59 wounds, 90% were located on the arms and legs, and 69% were on the posterior upper or anterior lower extremities. Five wounds (9%) involved exposed deep structures such as the bone or tendon.
• Of the 57 wounds with available photographs, 60% had wound beds with predominantly devitalized tissue (eschar or slough), 11% were blisters, 9% had granulation tissue, and 21% had mixed tissue or other types of wound beds. Devitalized tissue was more commonly observed in medium or large wounds (odds ratio [OR], 5.2; P = .02) than in small wounds.
• As reported by patients, 48% were acute wounds, 20% were subacute, and 29% were chronic (present for 3 months or longer). Subacute and chronic wounds were often medium or large compared with acute wounds (OR, 48.5; P < .001) and contained devitalized tissue (OR, 9.5; P < .001).
• Of the 39 wounds with patient-reported etiology, 34 (87%) occurred at drug injection sites.

IN PRACTICE:

To the best of their knowledge, this is “the largest study of wounds among patients with confirmed exposure to xylazine and the first to systematically describe wound characteristics,” the authors wrote. The results, they concluded, “may help identify xylazine exposure and can guide research on the etiology and management of these wounds.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Lydia Lutz, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and coinvestigators and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This single-city, retrospective study limited generalizability, and the selection of the largest wounds may bias results. Additionally, chronicity data relied on patient recall, potentially introducing recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors received support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for the study. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) than either treatment alone, a new study showed.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a double-blind, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial from 2021 to 2023 at three hospitals in China with 240 participants with MDD (mean age, 32.5 years; 58% women).
• Participants received active tDCS + active rTMS, sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, or sham tDCS + sham rTMS with treatments administered five times per week for 2 weeks.
• tDCS was administered in 20-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct current stimulator, whereas rTMS involved 1600 pulses of 10-Hz stimulation targeting the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Sham treatments used a pseudostimulation coil and only emitted sound.
• The primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score from baseline to week 2.
• Secondary outcomes included HDRS-24 total score change at week 4, remission rate (HDRS-24 total score ≤ 9), response rate (≥ 50% reduction in HDRS-24 total score), and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• The active tDCS + active rTMS group demonstrated the greatest reduction in mean HDRS-24 score (18.33 ± 5.39) at week 2 compared with sham tDCS + active rTMS, active tDCS + sham rTMS, and sham tDCS + sham rTMS (P < .001).
• Response rates at week 2 were notably higher in the active tDCS + active rTMS group (85%) than in the active tDCS + sham rTMS (30%) and sham tDCS + sham rTMS groups (32%).
• The remission rate at week 4 reached 83% in the active tDCS + active rTMS group, which was significantly higher than the remission rates with the other interventions (P < .001).
• The treatments were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, seizures, or manic symptoms reported across all intervention groups.

IN PRACTICE:

This trial “was the first to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of combining tDCS and rTMS in treating depression. Future studies should focus on investigating the mechanism of this synergistic effect and improving the stimulation parameters to optimize the therapeutic effect,” the investigators wrote.

 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Dongsheng Zhou, MD, Ningbo Kangning Hospital, Ningbo, China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The brief treatment duration involving 10 sessions may have been insufficient for tDCS and rTMS to demonstrate their full antidepressant potential. The inability to regulate participants’ antidepressant medications throughout the study period presented another limitation. Additionally, the lack of stratified randomization and adjustment for center effects may have introduced variability in the results.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support from multiple grants, including from the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, Basic Public Welfare Research Project of Zhejiang Province, Ningbo Medical and Health Brand Discipline, Ningbo Clinical Medical Research Centre for Mental Health, Ningbo Top Medical and Health Research Program, and the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A population-based study has shown a slightly elevated risk for patients’ developing skin disorders, including alopecia areata (AA), alopecia totalis (AT), vitiligo, and bullous pemphigoid (BP), more than 6 months after COVID-19 infection. In addition, the authors reported that COVID-19 vaccination appears to reduce these risks.

The study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

 

‘Compelling Evidence’

“This well-executed study by Heo et al provides compelling evidence to support an association between COVID-19 infection and the development of subsequent autoimmune and autoinflammatory skin diseases,” wrote authors led by Lisa M. Arkin, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison, in an accompanying editorial.

Using databases from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, investigators led by Yeon-Woo Heo, MD, a dermatology resident at Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Republic of Korea, compared 3.1 million people who had COVID-19 with 3.8 million controls, all with at least 180 days’ follow-up through December 31, 2022.

At a mean follow-up of 287 days in both cohorts, authors found significantly elevated risks for AA and vitiligo (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11 for both), AT (aHR, 1.24), Behçet disease (aHR, 1.45), and BP (aHR, 1.62) in the post–COVID-19 cohort. The infection also raised the risk for other conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus (aHR, 1.14) and Crohn’s disease (aHR, 1.35).

In subgroup analyses, demographic factors were associated with diverse effects: COVID-19 infection was associated with significantly higher odds of developing AA (for both men and women), vitiligo (men), Behçet disease (men and women), Crohn’s disease (men), ulcerative colitis (men), rheumatoid arthritis (men and women), systemic lupus erythematosus (men), ankylosing spondylitis (men), AT (women), and BP (women) than controls.

Those aged under 40 years were more likely to develop AA, primary cicatricial alopecia, Behçet disease, and ulcerative colitis, while those aged 40 years or older were more likely to develop AA, AT, vitiligo, Behçet disease, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and BP.

Additionally, severe COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit admission was associated with a significantly increased risk for autoimmune diseases, including AA, psoriasis, BP, and sarcoidosis. By timeframe, risks for AA, AT, and psoriasis were significantly higher during the initial Delta-dominant period.

 

Vaccination Effect

Moreover, vaccinated individuals were less likely to develop AA, AT, psoriasis, Behçet disease, and various nondermatologic conditions than were those who were unvaccinated. This finding, wrote Heo and colleagues, “may provide evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent autoimmune diseases.”

“That’s the part we all need to take into our offices tomorrow,” said Brett King, MD, PhD, a Fairfield, Connecticut–based dermatologist in private practice. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Overall, King said, the study carries two main messages. “The first is that COVID-19 infection increases the likelihood of developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease in a large population.” The second and very important message is that being vaccinated against COVID-19 provides protection against developing an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease.

“My concern is that the popular media highlights the first part,” said King, “and everybody who develops alopecia areata, vitiligo, or sarcoidosis blames COVID-19. That’s not what this work says.”

The foregoing distinction is especially important during the fall and winter, he added, when people getting influenza vaccines are routinely offered COVID-19 vaccines. “Many patients have said, ‘I got the COVID vaccine and developed alopecia areata 6 months later.’ Nearly everybody who has developed a new or worsening health condition in the last almost 5 years has had the perfect fall guy — the COVID vaccine or infection.”

With virtually all patients asking if they should get an updated COVID-19 vaccine or booster, he added, many report having heard that such vaccines cause AA, vitiligo, or other diseases. “To anchor these conversations in real data and not just anecdotes from a blog or Facebook is very useful,” said King, “and now we have very good data saying that the COVID vaccine is protective against these disorders.”

George Han, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, applauds investigators’ use of a large, robust database but suggests interpreting results cautiously. He was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“You could do a large, well-done study,” Han said, “but it could still not necessarily be generalizable. These autoimmune conditions they’re looking at have clear ethnic and racial biases.” Heo and colleagues acknowledged shortcomings including their study population’s monomorphic nature.

Additional issues that limit the study’s impact, said Han, include the difficulty of conceptualizing a 10%-20% increase in conditions that at baseline are rare. And many of the findings reflected natural patterns, he said. For instance, BP more commonly affects older people, COVID-19 notwithstanding.

Han said that for him, the study’s main value going forward is helping to explain a rash of worsening inflammatory skin disease that many dermatologists saw early in the pandemic. “We would regularly see patients who were well controlled with, for example, psoriasis or eczema. But after COVID-19 infection or a vaccine (usually mRNA-type), in some cases they would come in flaring badly.” This happened at least a dozen times during the first year of post-shutdown appointments, he said.

“We’ve seen patients who have flared multiple times — they get the booster, then flare again,” Han added. Similar patterns occurred with pyoderma gangrenosum and other inflammatory skin diseases, he said.

Given the modest effect sizes of the associations reported in the Korean study, Arkin and colleagues wrote in their JAMA Dermatology editorial that surveillance for autoimmune disease is probably not warranted without new examination findings or symptoms. “For certain,” King said, “we should not go hunting for things that aren’t obviously there.”

Rather, Arkin and colleagues wrote, the higher autoimmunity rates seen among the unvaccinated, as well as during the Delta phase (when patients were sicker and hospitalizations were more likely) and in patients requiring intensive care, suggest that “interventions that reduce disease severity could also potentially reduce long-term risk of subsequent autoimmune sequelae.”

Future research addressing whether people with preexisting autoimmune conditions are at greater risk for flares or developing new autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 infection “would help to frame an evidence-based approach for patients with autoimmune disorders who develop COVID-19 infection, including the role for antiviral treatments,” they added.

The study was supported by grants from the Research Program of the Korea Medical Institute, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. Han and King reported no relevant financial relationships. Arkin disclosed receiving research grants to her institution from Amgen and Eli Lilly, personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for consulting, and personal consulting fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Another author reported personal consulting fees from Dexcel Pharma and Honeydew outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early escalation to biologic therapies after failure of treat-to-target with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) does not significantly reduce the risk for the development of difficult-to-treat RA.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis including 722 patients with new-onset RA (mean age, 60 years; 72% women) who were identified from a cohort at the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo University Hospital in Italy and followed-up for at least 3 years after diagnosis.
• Patients were initially treated with methotrexate, with escalation to biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in case they did not reach the therapeutic target.
• Follow-up for patients who started b/tsDMARDs occurred every 2 months for the first 6 months, then every 4 months, with a target of achieving low disease activity (28-joint disease activity score, < 3.2).
• The effectiveness of each DMARD was evaluated using drug survival rates, and the development of difficult-to-treat RA was assessed using the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria.

TAKEAWAY:

• The retention rate of the first b/tsDMARD dropped from 72.3% at 12 months to 41.6% at 60 months, indicating a decline in treatment persistence over time.
• Early escalation to biologic therapies did not significantly reduce the risk for difficult-to-treat RA, with 29% patients meeting the criteria after a median follow-up period of 72.6 months.
• Patients with higher disease activity and a higher number of swollen joints at the start of biologic therapy were more likely to develop treatment resistance.
• Shorter disease duration at the start of treatment with b/tsDMARDs, a greater number of swollen joints, worse pain scores, and autoantibody-negative status were identified as independent predictors of difficult-to-treat RA.

IN PRACTICE:

“Early implementation of treatment after failure of treat-to-target with MTX [methotrexate] may not prevent the development of D2T [difficult-to-treat] in patients with RA,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bernardo D’Onofrio, MD, and Ludovico De Stefano, MD, Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, in Italy. It was published online November 8, 2024, in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The escalation to b/tsDMARDs was not strictly guided by disease activity scores, potentially reflecting clinical practice. Additionally, the study did not account for socioeconomic factors or adherence, which may have influenced treatment outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation. One author reported receiving grants/research support and personal fees and two authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Early escalation to biologic therapies after failure of treat-to-target with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) does not significantly reduce the risk for the development of difficult-to-treat RA.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis including 722 patients with new-onset RA (mean age, 60 years; 72% women) who were identified from a cohort at the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo University Hospital in Italy and followed-up for at least 3 years after diagnosis.
• Patients were initially treated with methotrexate, with escalation to biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in case they did not reach the therapeutic target.
• Follow-up for patients who started b/tsDMARDs occurred every 2 months for the first 6 months, then every 4 months, with a target of achieving low disease activity (28-joint disease activity score, < 3.2).
• The effectiveness of each DMARD was evaluated using drug survival rates, and the development of difficult-to-treat RA was assessed using the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria.

TAKEAWAY:

• The retention rate of the first b/tsDMARD dropped from 72.3% at 12 months to 41.6% at 60 months, indicating a decline in treatment persistence over time.
• Early escalation to biologic therapies did not significantly reduce the risk for difficult-to-treat RA, with 29% patients meeting the criteria after a median follow-up period of 72.6 months.
• Patients with higher disease activity and a higher number of swollen joints at the start of biologic therapy were more likely to develop treatment resistance.
• Shorter disease duration at the start of treatment with b/tsDMARDs, a greater number of swollen joints, worse pain scores, and autoantibody-negative status were identified as independent predictors of difficult-to-treat RA.

IN PRACTICE:

“Early implementation of treatment after failure of treat-to-target with MTX [methotrexate] may not prevent the development of D2T [difficult-to-treat] in patients with RA,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bernardo D’Onofrio, MD, and Ludovico De Stefano, MD, Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, in Italy. It was published online November 8, 2024, in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The escalation to b/tsDMARDs was not strictly guided by disease activity scores, potentially reflecting clinical practice. Additionally, the study did not account for socioeconomic factors or adherence, which may have influenced treatment outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation. One author reported receiving grants/research support and personal fees and two authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Early escalation to biologic therapies after failure of treat-to-target with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) does not significantly reduce the risk for the development of difficult-to-treat RA.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis including 722 patients with new-onset RA (mean age, 60 years; 72% women) who were identified from a cohort at the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo University Hospital in Italy and followed-up for at least 3 years after diagnosis.
• Patients were initially treated with methotrexate, with escalation to biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in case they did not reach the therapeutic target.
• Follow-up for patients who started b/tsDMARDs occurred every 2 months for the first 6 months, then every 4 months, with a target of achieving low disease activity (28-joint disease activity score, < 3.2).
• The effectiveness of each DMARD was evaluated using drug survival rates, and the development of difficult-to-treat RA was assessed using the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria.

TAKEAWAY:

• The retention rate of the first b/tsDMARD dropped from 72.3% at 12 months to 41.6% at 60 months, indicating a decline in treatment persistence over time.
• Early escalation to biologic therapies did not significantly reduce the risk for difficult-to-treat RA, with 29% patients meeting the criteria after a median follow-up period of 72.6 months.
• Patients with higher disease activity and a higher number of swollen joints at the start of biologic therapy were more likely to develop treatment resistance.
• Shorter disease duration at the start of treatment with b/tsDMARDs, a greater number of swollen joints, worse pain scores, and autoantibody-negative status were identified as independent predictors of difficult-to-treat RA.

IN PRACTICE:

“Early implementation of treatment after failure of treat-to-target with MTX [methotrexate] may not prevent the development of D2T [difficult-to-treat] in patients with RA,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Bernardo D’Onofrio, MD, and Ludovico De Stefano, MD, Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, in Italy. It was published online November 8, 2024, in Arthritis Research & Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The escalation to b/tsDMARDs was not strictly guided by disease activity scores, potentially reflecting clinical practice. Additionally, the study did not account for socioeconomic factors or adherence, which may have influenced treatment outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a grant from the IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation. One author reported receiving grants/research support and personal fees and two authors reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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