User login
AI in Clinical Dermatology: Consider Limitations, Current Issues
SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, .
Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.
The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes.
Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.
To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.
Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy
In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.
The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.
In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.
“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.
For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA
Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.
Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity.
While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.
“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.
In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.
Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.
At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.
“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier.
AI Should Not Be a Black Box
AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.
“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.
“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.
“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.
Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, .
Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.
The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes.
Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.
To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.
Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy
In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.
The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.
In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.
“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.
For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA
Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.
Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity.
While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.
“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.
In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.
Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.
At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.
“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier.
AI Should Not Be a Black Box
AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.
“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.
“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.
“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.
Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
SAN DIEGO — Just a day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) began, .
Not least of the problems among the 41 apps evaluated, the majority offered no supporting evidence, no information about whether the app performance had been validated, and no information about how user privacy would be managed, reported Shannon Wongvibulsin, MD, PhD, a resident in the dermatology program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her coauthors.
The findings from this report were also summarized in a poster at the AAD meeting, and the major themes were reiterated in several AAD symposia devoted to AI at the meeting. Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, was one of those who weighed in on the future of AI. Although she was the senior author of the report, she did not address the report or poster directly, but her presentation on the practical aspects of incorporating AI into dermatology practice revisited several of its themes.
Of the different themes, perhaps the most important were the concept that the source of AI data matters and the point that practicing clinicians should be familiar with the data source.
To date, “there is not much transparency in what data AI models are using,” Dr. Rotemberg said at the meeting. Based on the expectation that dermatologists will be purchasing rather than developing their own AI-based systems, she reiterated more than once that “transparency of data is critical,” even if vendors are often reluctant to reveal how their proprietary systems have been developed.
Few Dermatology Apps Are Vetted for Accuracy
In the poster and in the more detailed JAMA Dermatology paper, Dr. Wongvibulsin and her coinvestigators evaluated direct-to-consumer downloadable apps that claim to help with the assessment and management of skin conditions. Very few provided any supporting evidence of accuracy or even information about how they functioned.
The 41 apps were drawn from more than 300 apps; the others were excluded for failing to meet such criteria as failing to employ AI, not being available in English, or not addressing clinical management of dermatologic diseases. Dr. Wongvibulsin pointed out that none of the apps had been granted regulatory approval even though only two provided a disclaimer to that effect.
In all, just 5 of the 41 provided supporting evidence from a peer-reviewed journal, and less than 40% were created with any input from a dermatologist, Dr. Wongvibulsin reported. The result is that the utility and accuracy of these apps were, for the most part, difficult to judge.
“At a minimum, app developers should provide details on what AI algorithms are used, what data sets were used for training, testing, and validation, whether there was any clinician input, whether there are any supporting publications, how user-submitted images are used, and if there are any measures used to ensure data privacy,” Dr. Wongvibulsin wrote in the poster.
For AI-based apps or systems designed for use by dermatologists, Dr. Rotemberg made similar assertions in her overview of what clinicians should be considering for proprietary AI systems, whether to help with diagnosis or improve office efficiency.
Only One Dermatology App Cleared By the FDA
Currently, the only FDA-cleared app for dermatologic use is the DermaSensor, an AI-driven device. It was cleared for use in January 2024 for the evaluation of skin lesions “suggestive” of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and/or squamous cell carcinoma in patients aged ≥ 40 years “to assist health care providers in determining whether to refer a patient to a dermatologist,” according to an FDA announcement.
Using elastic scattering spectroscopy to analyze light reflecting off the skin to detect malignancy, the manufacturer’s promotional material claims a 96% sensitivity and a 97% specificity.
While Dr. Rotemberg did not comment on these claims, she cautioned that AI models differ with regards to how they were trained and the relative heterogeneity of the training dataset defined by types of patients, types of skin, and types of AI learning processes. All of these variables are relevant in whether the AI will perform in a given clinical setting at the level it performed during development.
“The most accurate models employ narrow datasets, but these do not necessarily mimic what we see in practice,” she said.
In addition, even when an AI-based system is working for a given task, it must be monitored over time. Dr. Rotemberg warned about the potential for “data drift,” which describes the slow evolution in how diseases present, their prevalence by age, or other factors that might affect AI performance. She explained that repeated validation is needed to ensure that the AI-based models remain as accurate over time as they were when first used.
Many of these concepts were explored in a consensus statement from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI Working Group, published in JAMA Dermatology in December 2021. The statement, of which Dr. Rotemberg was a coauthor, provided recommendations for the principles of AI algorithm development specific to dermatologic considerations.
At the AAD symposium, Dr. Rotemberg asked the audience for suggestions about the needs they hoped AI might address for in office care or efficiency. Their responses included generating prior authorizations for prescriptions, triaging email for importance, and helping to improve efficiency for common front desk tasks. She liked all of these suggestions, but she warned that as powerful as it can be, AI is not likely to provide technology that will fit seamlessly into workflows without adjustment.
“Our current systems do not allow human integration of AI models,” Dr. Rotemberg said. Rather than counting on AI to adapt to current practices, she cautioned that “we may have to redesign our entire structure to actually be able to accommodate AI-based” systems. The risk for users is tasks that become more challenging before they become easier.
AI Should Not Be a Black Box
AI is promising, but it is not magic, according to other investigators, including Tofunmi A. Omiye, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in dermatology at Stanford University, California. First author of a recent review of AI in dermatology published in Frontiers in Medicine, Dr. Omiye agreed that clinicians who want to employ AI should be able to understand basic principles if they want the technology to perform as expected.
“I totally agree that physicians should at least have a basic understanding of the data sources for training AI models as we have found that to be important to the performance of these models in the clinical setting,” he told this news organization.
“Beyond understanding the data sources, I believe physicians can also try to have a comprehensive understanding of what AI means, its training process, and evaluation as this will help them to evaluate its utility in their practice,” he added. He also reinforced the relevance of data drift.
“Concepts like distribution shift — where models perform less well over time due to changes in the patient population — are also important to keep in mind,” Dr. Omiye said.
Dr. Wongvibulsin, Dr. Rotemberg, and Dr. Omiye reported no potential financial conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM AAD 2024
Nemolizumab Efficacy for Prurigo Nodularis Persists at 1 Year
SAN DIEGO — in an open-label follow-up pivotal trial following patients out to 52 weeks.
The OLYMPIA 2 trial, published just a few months ago, was positive for the primary endpoint of itch, and the 52-week data show “on-going improvement” not just in this key symptom but in the resolution of skin lesions, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the itch center and associate professor of dermatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
The drug, which was found well tolerated in the double-blind OLYMPIA 2 study at 16 weeks, has not been associated with any new adverse events (AEs) in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Kwatra, who presented these findings in a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).
The promise of an anti-IL-31 drug for sustained control of itch and inflammation was further supported by a separate late breaker on long-term maintenance data on nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
New Prurigo Nodularis Therapies Needed
For prurigo nodularis, excitement about a new therapy is particularly warranted, according to Dr. Kwatra. Current treatment options, such as steroids and antihistamines, are neither well-tolerated nor particularly effective in most patients. He indicated that the very positive interim 52-week data from the ongoing open-label extension suggests that nemolizumab might be an important step forward for patients with this disease.
The interim 52-week analysis included 307 patients on continuous nemolizumab and 174 patients randomized previously to placebo and were nemolizumab-naive when they entered the open-label extension. Participants were drawn from the phase 3 trial as well as an earlier phase 2 study. Nemolizumab in all patients was delivered at a subcutaneous dose of 45 mg every 4 weeks.
Pointing out that the 2024 AAD annual meeting, with more than 19,000 attendees, “was the largest dermatology conference in the history of the world,” he added that his late-breaker results represent “the largest prurigo nodularis clinical study in the history of the world.”
At 52 weeks, 89.9% and 83.3% of those on continuous nemolizumab and those switched to nemolizumab, respectively, had achieved at least a 4-point reduction from baseline on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which has a range from 0 to 10.
Approximately two thirds of patients (67.8% and 64.4%, respectively) had a weekly average peak NRS of ≤ 2, meaning they were free or almost free of itch. The improvement in a sleep index and in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index closely followed the relief of itch with the large gains achieved within weeks of initiating treatment continuing on an upward slope at 52 weeks.
Over this time, lesions were also resolving. By week 52, healing of more than 75% of lesions had been achieved by 79.1% in both those on continuous nemolizumab and those who had been switched to nemolizumab. The rate of response was again about two thirds for those with lesion resolution considered clear or almost clear by the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response.
No Serious AEs Over Extended Follow-Up
With a mean duration of 388 days follow-up, there were no serious AEs that were clearly treatment related, but Dr. Kwatra did report that some patients developed mild eczematous lesions that typically responded to topical therapy. He also reported that asthma, particularly worsening asthma in patients already diagnosed with this disease, was seen in a small proportion of patients. Both were considered manageable, and no patients discontinued therapy because of these events, Dr. Kwatra said.
While further follow-up is planned, “we have never seen data in a prurigo nodularis [treatment trial] past 6 months,” he pointed out. For a challenging disease with a major adverse effect on quality of life, nemolizumab, if approved, will offer an important option for a difficult disease, he added.
Itch Improves in Patients with AD
Further support for the long-term safety of nemolizumab and its efficacy against itch was provided by another phase 3 extension study conducted in the treatment of AD. These long-term extension results were also presented in a late breaker session at the AAD meeting.
Evaluating maintenance data from responders, defined as a 75% reduction lesions on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or as clear or almost clear skin on IGA at the end of the randomized ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, there were 169 patients on every 4-week nemolizumab, 169 patients on every 8-week nemolizumab, and 169 patients on every 4-week placebo.
For pruritus, a ≥ 4 point NRS reduction was achieved at week 48 in 76.2% of those on the every 4-week dose, 59.7% of those on the every 8-week dose, and 41% on those on placebo, reported Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Department of Dermatology, George Washington School of Medicine, Washington.
These not only represented sustained responses over the course of 48 weeks, but there was a gradual rise in this rate of success from baseline in the higher dose group. For a NRS score of ≤ 2, meaning no itch or almost no itch, the proportions were 64.9%, 52.9%, and 31.3%, respectively. These were accompanied by sustained responses in IGA and EASI-75 scores.
Overall, there was a “nice durability of response” over the maintenance period, with no new or dose-related safety signals, according to Dr. Silverberg. He pointed out that the every 8-week dose response was lower than every 4-week dose response, but “it looks very good” in regard to response and duration of response, “suggesting that this might be an option for a large subset of patients.”
Andrew Blauvelt, MD, an investigator with Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, Oregon, cautioned that despite the promise, dermatologists “might need help” in understanding this new agent and using it appropriately. He pointed out that it employs a new mechanism of action, and it has “a couple of new twists that we have not seen with other drugs,” including its association with worsening asthma.
Noting that asthma exacerbation has been reported in a proportion of treated patients approaching 4%, he expressed concern “that this is not rare.” He also expressed concern about reports of peripheral edema and asked Dr. Kwatra specifically how this should be handled in the routine clinical setting.
Pointing out that the 1% of new cases of asthma in the nemolizumab arm was, in fact, lower than the rate of new cases in the placebo arm, Dr. Kwatra said that there have been cases of increased asthma symptoms in patients with existing disease. However, he added that this and the reports of peripheral edema, some of which appear to be simply associated with prurigo nodularis, typically resolve with routine interventions. He said, however, that these side effects represent legitimate concerns that clinicians should consider, but he indicated that they do not appear to be a threat to the benefit-to-risk ratio of this agent.
In February 2024, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency accepted submissions for nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and AD, according to Galderma, the company developing nemolizumab.
Dr. Kwatra reported a financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, which sponsored the nemolizumab trials. Dr. Silverberg reported financial relationships with more than 35 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma. Dr. Blauvelt reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — in an open-label follow-up pivotal trial following patients out to 52 weeks.
The OLYMPIA 2 trial, published just a few months ago, was positive for the primary endpoint of itch, and the 52-week data show “on-going improvement” not just in this key symptom but in the resolution of skin lesions, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the itch center and associate professor of dermatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
The drug, which was found well tolerated in the double-blind OLYMPIA 2 study at 16 weeks, has not been associated with any new adverse events (AEs) in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Kwatra, who presented these findings in a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).
The promise of an anti-IL-31 drug for sustained control of itch and inflammation was further supported by a separate late breaker on long-term maintenance data on nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
New Prurigo Nodularis Therapies Needed
For prurigo nodularis, excitement about a new therapy is particularly warranted, according to Dr. Kwatra. Current treatment options, such as steroids and antihistamines, are neither well-tolerated nor particularly effective in most patients. He indicated that the very positive interim 52-week data from the ongoing open-label extension suggests that nemolizumab might be an important step forward for patients with this disease.
The interim 52-week analysis included 307 patients on continuous nemolizumab and 174 patients randomized previously to placebo and were nemolizumab-naive when they entered the open-label extension. Participants were drawn from the phase 3 trial as well as an earlier phase 2 study. Nemolizumab in all patients was delivered at a subcutaneous dose of 45 mg every 4 weeks.
Pointing out that the 2024 AAD annual meeting, with more than 19,000 attendees, “was the largest dermatology conference in the history of the world,” he added that his late-breaker results represent “the largest prurigo nodularis clinical study in the history of the world.”
At 52 weeks, 89.9% and 83.3% of those on continuous nemolizumab and those switched to nemolizumab, respectively, had achieved at least a 4-point reduction from baseline on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which has a range from 0 to 10.
Approximately two thirds of patients (67.8% and 64.4%, respectively) had a weekly average peak NRS of ≤ 2, meaning they were free or almost free of itch. The improvement in a sleep index and in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index closely followed the relief of itch with the large gains achieved within weeks of initiating treatment continuing on an upward slope at 52 weeks.
Over this time, lesions were also resolving. By week 52, healing of more than 75% of lesions had been achieved by 79.1% in both those on continuous nemolizumab and those who had been switched to nemolizumab. The rate of response was again about two thirds for those with lesion resolution considered clear or almost clear by the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response.
No Serious AEs Over Extended Follow-Up
With a mean duration of 388 days follow-up, there were no serious AEs that were clearly treatment related, but Dr. Kwatra did report that some patients developed mild eczematous lesions that typically responded to topical therapy. He also reported that asthma, particularly worsening asthma in patients already diagnosed with this disease, was seen in a small proportion of patients. Both were considered manageable, and no patients discontinued therapy because of these events, Dr. Kwatra said.
While further follow-up is planned, “we have never seen data in a prurigo nodularis [treatment trial] past 6 months,” he pointed out. For a challenging disease with a major adverse effect on quality of life, nemolizumab, if approved, will offer an important option for a difficult disease, he added.
Itch Improves in Patients with AD
Further support for the long-term safety of nemolizumab and its efficacy against itch was provided by another phase 3 extension study conducted in the treatment of AD. These long-term extension results were also presented in a late breaker session at the AAD meeting.
Evaluating maintenance data from responders, defined as a 75% reduction lesions on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or as clear or almost clear skin on IGA at the end of the randomized ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, there were 169 patients on every 4-week nemolizumab, 169 patients on every 8-week nemolizumab, and 169 patients on every 4-week placebo.
For pruritus, a ≥ 4 point NRS reduction was achieved at week 48 in 76.2% of those on the every 4-week dose, 59.7% of those on the every 8-week dose, and 41% on those on placebo, reported Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Department of Dermatology, George Washington School of Medicine, Washington.
These not only represented sustained responses over the course of 48 weeks, but there was a gradual rise in this rate of success from baseline in the higher dose group. For a NRS score of ≤ 2, meaning no itch or almost no itch, the proportions were 64.9%, 52.9%, and 31.3%, respectively. These were accompanied by sustained responses in IGA and EASI-75 scores.
Overall, there was a “nice durability of response” over the maintenance period, with no new or dose-related safety signals, according to Dr. Silverberg. He pointed out that the every 8-week dose response was lower than every 4-week dose response, but “it looks very good” in regard to response and duration of response, “suggesting that this might be an option for a large subset of patients.”
Andrew Blauvelt, MD, an investigator with Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, Oregon, cautioned that despite the promise, dermatologists “might need help” in understanding this new agent and using it appropriately. He pointed out that it employs a new mechanism of action, and it has “a couple of new twists that we have not seen with other drugs,” including its association with worsening asthma.
Noting that asthma exacerbation has been reported in a proportion of treated patients approaching 4%, he expressed concern “that this is not rare.” He also expressed concern about reports of peripheral edema and asked Dr. Kwatra specifically how this should be handled in the routine clinical setting.
Pointing out that the 1% of new cases of asthma in the nemolizumab arm was, in fact, lower than the rate of new cases in the placebo arm, Dr. Kwatra said that there have been cases of increased asthma symptoms in patients with existing disease. However, he added that this and the reports of peripheral edema, some of which appear to be simply associated with prurigo nodularis, typically resolve with routine interventions. He said, however, that these side effects represent legitimate concerns that clinicians should consider, but he indicated that they do not appear to be a threat to the benefit-to-risk ratio of this agent.
In February 2024, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency accepted submissions for nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and AD, according to Galderma, the company developing nemolizumab.
Dr. Kwatra reported a financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, which sponsored the nemolizumab trials. Dr. Silverberg reported financial relationships with more than 35 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma. Dr. Blauvelt reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — in an open-label follow-up pivotal trial following patients out to 52 weeks.
The OLYMPIA 2 trial, published just a few months ago, was positive for the primary endpoint of itch, and the 52-week data show “on-going improvement” not just in this key symptom but in the resolution of skin lesions, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the itch center and associate professor of dermatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
The drug, which was found well tolerated in the double-blind OLYMPIA 2 study at 16 weeks, has not been associated with any new adverse events (AEs) in follow-up so far, according to Dr. Kwatra, who presented these findings in a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD).
The promise of an anti-IL-31 drug for sustained control of itch and inflammation was further supported by a separate late breaker on long-term maintenance data on nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
New Prurigo Nodularis Therapies Needed
For prurigo nodularis, excitement about a new therapy is particularly warranted, according to Dr. Kwatra. Current treatment options, such as steroids and antihistamines, are neither well-tolerated nor particularly effective in most patients. He indicated that the very positive interim 52-week data from the ongoing open-label extension suggests that nemolizumab might be an important step forward for patients with this disease.
The interim 52-week analysis included 307 patients on continuous nemolizumab and 174 patients randomized previously to placebo and were nemolizumab-naive when they entered the open-label extension. Participants were drawn from the phase 3 trial as well as an earlier phase 2 study. Nemolizumab in all patients was delivered at a subcutaneous dose of 45 mg every 4 weeks.
Pointing out that the 2024 AAD annual meeting, with more than 19,000 attendees, “was the largest dermatology conference in the history of the world,” he added that his late-breaker results represent “the largest prurigo nodularis clinical study in the history of the world.”
At 52 weeks, 89.9% and 83.3% of those on continuous nemolizumab and those switched to nemolizumab, respectively, had achieved at least a 4-point reduction from baseline on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which has a range from 0 to 10.
Approximately two thirds of patients (67.8% and 64.4%, respectively) had a weekly average peak NRS of ≤ 2, meaning they were free or almost free of itch. The improvement in a sleep index and in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index closely followed the relief of itch with the large gains achieved within weeks of initiating treatment continuing on an upward slope at 52 weeks.
Over this time, lesions were also resolving. By week 52, healing of more than 75% of lesions had been achieved by 79.1% in both those on continuous nemolizumab and those who had been switched to nemolizumab. The rate of response was again about two thirds for those with lesion resolution considered clear or almost clear by the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response.
No Serious AEs Over Extended Follow-Up
With a mean duration of 388 days follow-up, there were no serious AEs that were clearly treatment related, but Dr. Kwatra did report that some patients developed mild eczematous lesions that typically responded to topical therapy. He also reported that asthma, particularly worsening asthma in patients already diagnosed with this disease, was seen in a small proportion of patients. Both were considered manageable, and no patients discontinued therapy because of these events, Dr. Kwatra said.
While further follow-up is planned, “we have never seen data in a prurigo nodularis [treatment trial] past 6 months,” he pointed out. For a challenging disease with a major adverse effect on quality of life, nemolizumab, if approved, will offer an important option for a difficult disease, he added.
Itch Improves in Patients with AD
Further support for the long-term safety of nemolizumab and its efficacy against itch was provided by another phase 3 extension study conducted in the treatment of AD. These long-term extension results were also presented in a late breaker session at the AAD meeting.
Evaluating maintenance data from responders, defined as a 75% reduction lesions on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or as clear or almost clear skin on IGA at the end of the randomized ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, there were 169 patients on every 4-week nemolizumab, 169 patients on every 8-week nemolizumab, and 169 patients on every 4-week placebo.
For pruritus, a ≥ 4 point NRS reduction was achieved at week 48 in 76.2% of those on the every 4-week dose, 59.7% of those on the every 8-week dose, and 41% on those on placebo, reported Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Department of Dermatology, George Washington School of Medicine, Washington.
These not only represented sustained responses over the course of 48 weeks, but there was a gradual rise in this rate of success from baseline in the higher dose group. For a NRS score of ≤ 2, meaning no itch or almost no itch, the proportions were 64.9%, 52.9%, and 31.3%, respectively. These were accompanied by sustained responses in IGA and EASI-75 scores.
Overall, there was a “nice durability of response” over the maintenance period, with no new or dose-related safety signals, according to Dr. Silverberg. He pointed out that the every 8-week dose response was lower than every 4-week dose response, but “it looks very good” in regard to response and duration of response, “suggesting that this might be an option for a large subset of patients.”
Andrew Blauvelt, MD, an investigator with Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, Oregon, cautioned that despite the promise, dermatologists “might need help” in understanding this new agent and using it appropriately. He pointed out that it employs a new mechanism of action, and it has “a couple of new twists that we have not seen with other drugs,” including its association with worsening asthma.
Noting that asthma exacerbation has been reported in a proportion of treated patients approaching 4%, he expressed concern “that this is not rare.” He also expressed concern about reports of peripheral edema and asked Dr. Kwatra specifically how this should be handled in the routine clinical setting.
Pointing out that the 1% of new cases of asthma in the nemolizumab arm was, in fact, lower than the rate of new cases in the placebo arm, Dr. Kwatra said that there have been cases of increased asthma symptoms in patients with existing disease. However, he added that this and the reports of peripheral edema, some of which appear to be simply associated with prurigo nodularis, typically resolve with routine interventions. He said, however, that these side effects represent legitimate concerns that clinicians should consider, but he indicated that they do not appear to be a threat to the benefit-to-risk ratio of this agent.
In February 2024, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency accepted submissions for nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and AD, according to Galderma, the company developing nemolizumab.
Dr. Kwatra reported a financial relationship with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, which sponsored the nemolizumab trials. Dr. Silverberg reported financial relationships with more than 35 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma. Dr. Blauvelt reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2024
Billions Spent on DMD Meds Despite Scant Proof of Efficacy
Three genetically targeted drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) — eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen — cost the US health care system more than $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, despite a lack of confirmatory efficacy data, a new analysis showed.
“We were certainly surprised to see how much was spent on these drugs during the period when we were still waiting for evidence to confirm whether or not they were effective,” study investigator Benjamin Rome, MD, MPH, with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.
“With these drugs often costing over $1 million a year, these results show how spending can add up even for drugs that treat a rare disease,” Dr. Rome added.
The study was published online March 11, 2024, in JAMA.
No Confirmatory Research
Investigators estimated public and private spending on eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen for DMD during 2016 and 2022 — years in which these drugs were marketed without the required confirmatory studies completed.
Annual net sales, which include rebates and statutory discounts to Medicaid or 340B entities, for the three drugs totaled $3.1 billion during the study period. Estimated Medicaid and Medicare spending accounted for $1.2 billion of that total. Of this total, Medicaid programs spent $1.1 billion (34% of US net sales) and Medicare spent $104 million (3% of US net sales).
Overall sales for the drugs increased from $7 million in 2016 to $879 million in 2022, while Medicaid and Medicare spending rose from $25 million in 2017 to $327 million in 2022.
Most of the spending on these therapies was for eteplirsen ($2.6 billion [82%]), “the efficacy of which has yet to be determined in a confirmatory trial more than 7 years after the drug’s accelerated approval,” the authors noted.
Of the total amount spent on the three drugs, US payers spent an estimated $301 million (10%) on casimersen and $263 million (8%) on golodirsen.
The findings point to the importance of follow up on drugs that are approved with preliminary evidence, Rome said.
“Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration have already made some important changes to the accelerated approval pathway, so hopefully we won’t see cases of multi-year delays in the future,” he said.
“Payers, including public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, need tools to financially encourage companies to complete the follow-up trials, such as paying less for drugs with accelerated approval or engaging in outcomes-based contracts to ensure they don’t pay billions of dollars for drugs that ultimately turn out not to be effective,” Dr. Rome added.
Reached for comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, noted that when a condition impacts a small population, as is the case with muscular dystrophy, there are fewer people over which to spread the cost of treatment development.
Dr. Powell pointed to a recent report that showed the average cost of developing a new drug exceeds $2 billion. The finding in the current study, that three DMD treatments had combined net sales of $3.1 billion over a 7-year period, “suggests that their developers may not have yet recouped their development costs,” Dr. Powell told this news organization.
“Unless the cost of drug development can be lessened through innovations in artificial intelligence or other means, high spending per patient for drugs addressing uncommon conditions is to be expected,” noted Dr. Powell, who was not part of the study.
“That said, it is concerning when substantial funds are being spent by public payers on treatments that do not work,” he added. “As the authors suggest, one option is to tie reimbursement to efficacy. While patients living with deadly conditions cannot indefinitely wait for treatments to be validated, clawing back payments in the event of inefficacy is always an option.”
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Rome reported receiving grants from the Elevance Health Public Policy Institute, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and several state prescription drug affordability boards outside the submitted work. Powell had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Three genetically targeted drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) — eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen — cost the US health care system more than $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, despite a lack of confirmatory efficacy data, a new analysis showed.
“We were certainly surprised to see how much was spent on these drugs during the period when we were still waiting for evidence to confirm whether or not they were effective,” study investigator Benjamin Rome, MD, MPH, with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.
“With these drugs often costing over $1 million a year, these results show how spending can add up even for drugs that treat a rare disease,” Dr. Rome added.
The study was published online March 11, 2024, in JAMA.
No Confirmatory Research
Investigators estimated public and private spending on eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen for DMD during 2016 and 2022 — years in which these drugs were marketed without the required confirmatory studies completed.
Annual net sales, which include rebates and statutory discounts to Medicaid or 340B entities, for the three drugs totaled $3.1 billion during the study period. Estimated Medicaid and Medicare spending accounted for $1.2 billion of that total. Of this total, Medicaid programs spent $1.1 billion (34% of US net sales) and Medicare spent $104 million (3% of US net sales).
Overall sales for the drugs increased from $7 million in 2016 to $879 million in 2022, while Medicaid and Medicare spending rose from $25 million in 2017 to $327 million in 2022.
Most of the spending on these therapies was for eteplirsen ($2.6 billion [82%]), “the efficacy of which has yet to be determined in a confirmatory trial more than 7 years after the drug’s accelerated approval,” the authors noted.
Of the total amount spent on the three drugs, US payers spent an estimated $301 million (10%) on casimersen and $263 million (8%) on golodirsen.
The findings point to the importance of follow up on drugs that are approved with preliminary evidence, Rome said.
“Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration have already made some important changes to the accelerated approval pathway, so hopefully we won’t see cases of multi-year delays in the future,” he said.
“Payers, including public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, need tools to financially encourage companies to complete the follow-up trials, such as paying less for drugs with accelerated approval or engaging in outcomes-based contracts to ensure they don’t pay billions of dollars for drugs that ultimately turn out not to be effective,” Dr. Rome added.
Reached for comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, noted that when a condition impacts a small population, as is the case with muscular dystrophy, there are fewer people over which to spread the cost of treatment development.
Dr. Powell pointed to a recent report that showed the average cost of developing a new drug exceeds $2 billion. The finding in the current study, that three DMD treatments had combined net sales of $3.1 billion over a 7-year period, “suggests that their developers may not have yet recouped their development costs,” Dr. Powell told this news organization.
“Unless the cost of drug development can be lessened through innovations in artificial intelligence or other means, high spending per patient for drugs addressing uncommon conditions is to be expected,” noted Dr. Powell, who was not part of the study.
“That said, it is concerning when substantial funds are being spent by public payers on treatments that do not work,” he added. “As the authors suggest, one option is to tie reimbursement to efficacy. While patients living with deadly conditions cannot indefinitely wait for treatments to be validated, clawing back payments in the event of inefficacy is always an option.”
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Rome reported receiving grants from the Elevance Health Public Policy Institute, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and several state prescription drug affordability boards outside the submitted work. Powell had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Three genetically targeted drugs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) — eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen — cost the US health care system more than $3 billion between 2016 and 2022, despite a lack of confirmatory efficacy data, a new analysis showed.
“We were certainly surprised to see how much was spent on these drugs during the period when we were still waiting for evidence to confirm whether or not they were effective,” study investigator Benjamin Rome, MD, MPH, with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.
“With these drugs often costing over $1 million a year, these results show how spending can add up even for drugs that treat a rare disease,” Dr. Rome added.
The study was published online March 11, 2024, in JAMA.
No Confirmatory Research
Investigators estimated public and private spending on eteplirsen, golodirsen, and casimersen for DMD during 2016 and 2022 — years in which these drugs were marketed without the required confirmatory studies completed.
Annual net sales, which include rebates and statutory discounts to Medicaid or 340B entities, for the three drugs totaled $3.1 billion during the study period. Estimated Medicaid and Medicare spending accounted for $1.2 billion of that total. Of this total, Medicaid programs spent $1.1 billion (34% of US net sales) and Medicare spent $104 million (3% of US net sales).
Overall sales for the drugs increased from $7 million in 2016 to $879 million in 2022, while Medicaid and Medicare spending rose from $25 million in 2017 to $327 million in 2022.
Most of the spending on these therapies was for eteplirsen ($2.6 billion [82%]), “the efficacy of which has yet to be determined in a confirmatory trial more than 7 years after the drug’s accelerated approval,” the authors noted.
Of the total amount spent on the three drugs, US payers spent an estimated $301 million (10%) on casimersen and $263 million (8%) on golodirsen.
The findings point to the importance of follow up on drugs that are approved with preliminary evidence, Rome said.
“Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration have already made some important changes to the accelerated approval pathway, so hopefully we won’t see cases of multi-year delays in the future,” he said.
“Payers, including public payers like Medicare and Medicaid, need tools to financially encourage companies to complete the follow-up trials, such as paying less for drugs with accelerated approval or engaging in outcomes-based contracts to ensure they don’t pay billions of dollars for drugs that ultimately turn out not to be effective,” Dr. Rome added.
Reached for comment, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, noted that when a condition impacts a small population, as is the case with muscular dystrophy, there are fewer people over which to spread the cost of treatment development.
Dr. Powell pointed to a recent report that showed the average cost of developing a new drug exceeds $2 billion. The finding in the current study, that three DMD treatments had combined net sales of $3.1 billion over a 7-year period, “suggests that their developers may not have yet recouped their development costs,” Dr. Powell told this news organization.
“Unless the cost of drug development can be lessened through innovations in artificial intelligence or other means, high spending per patient for drugs addressing uncommon conditions is to be expected,” noted Dr. Powell, who was not part of the study.
“That said, it is concerning when substantial funds are being spent by public payers on treatments that do not work,” he added. “As the authors suggest, one option is to tie reimbursement to efficacy. While patients living with deadly conditions cannot indefinitely wait for treatments to be validated, clawing back payments in the event of inefficacy is always an option.”
The study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Rome reported receiving grants from the Elevance Health Public Policy Institute, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and several state prescription drug affordability boards outside the submitted work. Powell had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
New Transparent AI Predicts Breast Cancer 5 Years Out
A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.
The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.
“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.
“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.
One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)
The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.
“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
AI as a Second Set of Eyes
Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.
Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.
Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.
But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.
Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.
Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.
The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.
“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.
Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.
“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
Cautious Optimism
Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.
“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”
He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.
But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.
The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.
“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.
“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.
One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)
The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.
“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
AI as a Second Set of Eyes
Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.
Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.
Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.
But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.
Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.
Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.
The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.
“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.
Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.
“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
Cautious Optimism
Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.
“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”
He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.
But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new way of using artificial intelligence (AI) can predict breast cancer 5 years in advance with impressive accuracy — and unlike previous AI models, we know how this one works.
The new AI system, called AsymMirai, simplifies previous models by solely comparing differences between right and left breasts to predict risk. It could potentially save lives, prevent unnecessary testing, and save the healthcare system money, its creators say.
“With traditional AI, you ask it a question and it spits out an answer, but no one really knows how it makes its decisions. It’s a black box,” said Jon Donnelly, a PhD student in the department of computer science at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and first author on a new paper in Radiology describing the model.
“With our approach, people know how the algorithm comes up with its output so they can fact-check it and trust it,” he said.
One in eight women will develop invasive breast cancer, and 1 in 39 will die from it. Mammograms miss about 20% of breast cancers. (The shortcomings of genetic screening and mammograms received extra attention recently when actress Olivia Munn disclosed that she’d been treated for an aggressive form of breast cancer despite a normal mammogram and a negative genetic test.)
The model could help doctors bring the often-abstract idea of AI to the bedside in a meaningful way, said radiologist Vivianne Freitas, MD, assistant professor of medical imaging at the University of Toronto.
“This marks a new chapter in the field of AI,” said Dr. Freitas, who authored an editorial lauding the new paper. “It makes AI more tangible and understandable, thereby improving its potential for acceptance.”
AI as a Second Set of Eyes
Mr. Donnelly described AsymMirai as a simpler, more transparent, and easier-to-use version of Mirai, a breakthrough AI model which made headlines in 2021 with its promise to determine with unprecedented accuracy whether a patient is likely to get breast cancer within the next 5 years.
Mirai identified up to twice as many future cancer diagnoses as the conventional risk calculator Tyrer-Cuzick. It also maintained accuracy across a diverse set of patients — a notable plus for two fields (AI and healthcare) notorious for delivering poorer results for minorities.
Tyrer-Cuzick and other lower-tech risk calculators use personal and family history to statistically calculate risk. Mirai, on the other hand, analyzes countless bits of raw data embedded in a mammogram to decipher patterns a radiologist’s eyes may not catch. Four images, including two angles from each breast, are fed into the model, which produces a score between 0 and 1 to indicate the person’s risk of getting breast cancer in 1, 3, or 5 years.
But even Mirai’s creators have conceded they didn’t know exactly how it arrives at that score — a fact that has fueled hesitancy among clinicians.
Study coauthor Fides Schwartz, MD, a radiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said researchers were able to crack the code on Mirai’s “black box,” finding that its scores were largely determined by assessing subtle differences between right breast tissue and left breast tissue.
Knowing this, the research team simplified the model to predict risk based solely on “local bilateral dissimilarity.” AsymMirai was born.
The team then used AsymMirai to look back at > 200,000 mammograms from nearly 82,000 patients. They found it worked nearly as well as its predecessor, assigning a higher risk to those who would go on to develop cancer 66% of the time (vs Mirai’s 71%). In patients where it noticed the same asymmetry multiple years in a row it worked even better, with an 88% chance of giving people who would develop cancer later a higher score than those who would not.
“We found that we can, with surprisingly high accuracy, predict whether a woman will develop cancer in the next 1-5 years based solely on localized differences between her left and right breast tissue,” said Mr. Donnelly.
Dr. Schwartz imagines a day when radiologists could use the model to help develop personalized screening strategies for patients. Doctors might advise those with higher scores to get screened more often than guidelines suggest, supplement mammograms with an MRI , and keep a close watch on trouble spots identified by AI.
“For people with really low risk, on the other hand, maybe we can save them an annual exam that’s not super pleasant and might not be necessary,” said Dr. Schwartz.
Cautious Optimism
Robert Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society, noted that AI has been used for decades to try to reduce radiologists’ workload and improve diagnoses.
“But AI just never really lived up to its fullest potential,” Dr. Smith said, “quite often because it was being used as a crutch by inexperienced radiologists who, instead of interpreting the mammogram and then seeing what AI had to say ended up letting AI do most of the work which, frankly, just wasn’t that accurate.”
He’s hopeful that newer, more sophisticated iterations of AI medical imaging platforms (roughly 18-20 models are in development) can ultimately save women’s lives, particularly in areas where radiologists are in short supply.
But he believes it will be a long time before doctors, or their patients, are willing to risk postponing a mammogram based on an algorithm.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New CRC Risk Prediction Model Outperforms Polyp-Based Model
TOPLINE:
A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
- The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
- They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
- In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
- The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
- The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.
IN PRACTICE:
“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
- The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
- They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
- In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
- The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
- The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.
IN PRACTICE:
“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A comprehensive model considering patient age, diabetes, colonoscopy indications, and polyp findings can predict colorectal cancer (CRC) risk more accurately than the solely polyp-based model in patients with a first diagnosis of adenoma on colonoscopy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Because colonoscopy surveillance guidelines relying solely on previous polyp findings to assess CRC risk are imprecise, researchers developed and tested a comprehensive risk prediction model from a list of CRC-related predictors that included patient characteristics and clinical factors in addition to polyp findings.
- The comprehensive model included baseline colonoscopy indication, age group, diabetes diagnosis, and polyp findings (adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥ 10 mm, and sessile serrated or traditional serrated adenoma).
- They randomly assigned 95,001 patients (mean age, 61.9 years; 45.5% women) who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy to remove a conventional adenoma into two cohorts: Model development (66,500) and internal validation (28,501).
- In both cohorts, researchers compared the performance of the polyp findings-only method against the comprehensive model in predicting CRC, defined as an adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum diagnosed a year after the baseline colonoscopy.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the follow-up period starting 1 year after colonoscopy, 495 patients were diagnosed with CRC; 354 were in the development cohort and 141 were in the validation cohort.
- The comprehensive model demonstrated better predictive performance than the traditional polyp-based model in the development cohort (area under the curve [AUC], 0.71 vs 0.61) and in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.7 vs 0.62).
- The difference in the Akaike Information Criterion values between the comprehensive and polyp models was 45.7, much above the threshold of 10, strongly indicating the superior performance of the comprehensive model.
IN PRACTICE:
“Improving the ability to accurately predict the patients at highest risk for CRC after polypectomy is critically important, given the considerable costs and resources associated with treating CRC and the better prognosis associated with early cancer detection. The current findings provide proof of concept that inclusion of CRC risk factors beyond prior polyp findings has the potential to improve post-colonoscopy risk stratification,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jeffrey K. Lee, MD, MPH, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
External validation of the model’s performance is needed in different practice settings. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the study population did not include individuals without a prior adenoma or those with an isolated serrated polyp. Moreover, the examination of polyp size > 20 mm as a potential predictor of CRC was precluded due to incomplete data.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was conducted within the National Cancer Institute–funded Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process II consortium and funded by a career development grant from the National Cancer Institute to Lee. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Dietary Factors Linked to Development of Spondyloarthritis, Preliminary Findings Suggest
Preliminary findings from a small case-control study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, suggest an association between diet and the development of spondyloarthritis (SpA), researchers reported in a poster at the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The small study involving 106 cases of incident spondyloarthritis matched 5:1 to individuals without SpA on the basis of age, sex, year, and geography found that risk was significantly higher with consumption of nondiet soda (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76), and with use of certain supplements: folate (aOR, 2.56), B vitamins (1.98), and fish oil (1.83). Moderate alcohol use ranging from two servings per month up to five per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of SpA (aOR, 0.63).
“We have seen an association between diet and RA. There is also strong literature showing an association between the microbiome and spondyloarthritis. Putting these two together, we wanted to see if the same was true for spondyloarthritis,” Vanessa Kronzer, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic and a coauthor of the poster, said in an email. “Our results … do suggest an association between diet and developing spondyloarthritis as we suspected, for example, with soda.”
The researchers enrolled patients through the Mayo Clinic Biobank, which aims to engage a population-based sample of primary care patients, and administered questionnaires that assessed dietary and supplement exposures. They identified incident SpA using two diagnosis codes for ankylosing spondylitis or PsA ≥ 30 days apart along with use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. To identify inflammatory bowel disease–associated SpAs, they used two diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart and age < 45 years. Follow-up questionnaires were administered 5 years later, Dr. Kronzer said.
Controls were matched on age, sex, year and geography. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and smoking, the researchers reported in their poster.
Dr. Kronzer and coauthors reported finding no significant associations with high-fat food, red meat, fish, poultry, diet soda, coffee and tea, and high alcohol use. They reported finding “trends of reduced risk with fruits and vegetables but higher risk with milk/dairy” and said these trends “should be replicated in larger studies.”
The 106 patients with incident spondyloarthritis had a mean age of 51. Three-fourths were female.
The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kronzer and coauthors did not report any disclosures.
Preliminary findings from a small case-control study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, suggest an association between diet and the development of spondyloarthritis (SpA), researchers reported in a poster at the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The small study involving 106 cases of incident spondyloarthritis matched 5:1 to individuals without SpA on the basis of age, sex, year, and geography found that risk was significantly higher with consumption of nondiet soda (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76), and with use of certain supplements: folate (aOR, 2.56), B vitamins (1.98), and fish oil (1.83). Moderate alcohol use ranging from two servings per month up to five per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of SpA (aOR, 0.63).
“We have seen an association between diet and RA. There is also strong literature showing an association between the microbiome and spondyloarthritis. Putting these two together, we wanted to see if the same was true for spondyloarthritis,” Vanessa Kronzer, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic and a coauthor of the poster, said in an email. “Our results … do suggest an association between diet and developing spondyloarthritis as we suspected, for example, with soda.”
The researchers enrolled patients through the Mayo Clinic Biobank, which aims to engage a population-based sample of primary care patients, and administered questionnaires that assessed dietary and supplement exposures. They identified incident SpA using two diagnosis codes for ankylosing spondylitis or PsA ≥ 30 days apart along with use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. To identify inflammatory bowel disease–associated SpAs, they used two diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart and age < 45 years. Follow-up questionnaires were administered 5 years later, Dr. Kronzer said.
Controls were matched on age, sex, year and geography. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and smoking, the researchers reported in their poster.
Dr. Kronzer and coauthors reported finding no significant associations with high-fat food, red meat, fish, poultry, diet soda, coffee and tea, and high alcohol use. They reported finding “trends of reduced risk with fruits and vegetables but higher risk with milk/dairy” and said these trends “should be replicated in larger studies.”
The 106 patients with incident spondyloarthritis had a mean age of 51. Three-fourths were female.
The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kronzer and coauthors did not report any disclosures.
Preliminary findings from a small case-control study at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, suggest an association between diet and the development of spondyloarthritis (SpA), researchers reported in a poster at the Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The small study involving 106 cases of incident spondyloarthritis matched 5:1 to individuals without SpA on the basis of age, sex, year, and geography found that risk was significantly higher with consumption of nondiet soda (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.76), and with use of certain supplements: folate (aOR, 2.56), B vitamins (1.98), and fish oil (1.83). Moderate alcohol use ranging from two servings per month up to five per week was associated with a significantly lower risk of SpA (aOR, 0.63).
“We have seen an association between diet and RA. There is also strong literature showing an association between the microbiome and spondyloarthritis. Putting these two together, we wanted to see if the same was true for spondyloarthritis,” Vanessa Kronzer, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic and a coauthor of the poster, said in an email. “Our results … do suggest an association between diet and developing spondyloarthritis as we suspected, for example, with soda.”
The researchers enrolled patients through the Mayo Clinic Biobank, which aims to engage a population-based sample of primary care patients, and administered questionnaires that assessed dietary and supplement exposures. They identified incident SpA using two diagnosis codes for ankylosing spondylitis or PsA ≥ 30 days apart along with use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. To identify inflammatory bowel disease–associated SpAs, they used two diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart and age < 45 years. Follow-up questionnaires were administered 5 years later, Dr. Kronzer said.
Controls were matched on age, sex, year and geography. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, and smoking, the researchers reported in their poster.
Dr. Kronzer and coauthors reported finding no significant associations with high-fat food, red meat, fish, poultry, diet soda, coffee and tea, and high alcohol use. They reported finding “trends of reduced risk with fruits and vegetables but higher risk with milk/dairy” and said these trends “should be replicated in larger studies.”
The 106 patients with incident spondyloarthritis had a mean age of 51. Three-fourths were female.
The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kronzer and coauthors did not report any disclosures.
FROM RWCS 2024
Approval of Spesolimab for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Expanded
The in adults and in pediatric patients aged ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, according to an announcement from the manufacturer.
This is an expanded indication for spesolimab-sbzo, first approved in September 2022 for treating GPP flares. Developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and marketed under the name Spevigo, the product is an injectable antibody that blocks the IL-36 receptor, a key part of the pathway shown to be involved in the cause of GPP, which is rare and is a potentially-life-threatening disease.
According to a press release from the company, the FDA’s approval of the expanded indication was based on the results of a 48-week clinical trial of 123 patients (Effisayil 2), which showed that individuals who received spesolimab experienced a significant 84% reduction in GPP flares compared with those who received placebo. Among 30 study participants who received a high treatment dose, no flares were observed after week 4. Among all patients who received spesolimab-sbzo, treatment was associated with an increased incidence (defined as ≥ 9 cases per 100 patient-years) of injection site reactions, urinary tract infections, arthralgia, and pruritus compared with placebo.
Spesolimab-sbzo is currently available in 48 countries, according to the Boehringer Ingelheim release, which states that the approval makes it the first targeted therapy that is available for the acute and chronic treatment of patients with GPP.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The in adults and in pediatric patients aged ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, according to an announcement from the manufacturer.
This is an expanded indication for spesolimab-sbzo, first approved in September 2022 for treating GPP flares. Developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and marketed under the name Spevigo, the product is an injectable antibody that blocks the IL-36 receptor, a key part of the pathway shown to be involved in the cause of GPP, which is rare and is a potentially-life-threatening disease.
According to a press release from the company, the FDA’s approval of the expanded indication was based on the results of a 48-week clinical trial of 123 patients (Effisayil 2), which showed that individuals who received spesolimab experienced a significant 84% reduction in GPP flares compared with those who received placebo. Among 30 study participants who received a high treatment dose, no flares were observed after week 4. Among all patients who received spesolimab-sbzo, treatment was associated with an increased incidence (defined as ≥ 9 cases per 100 patient-years) of injection site reactions, urinary tract infections, arthralgia, and pruritus compared with placebo.
Spesolimab-sbzo is currently available in 48 countries, according to the Boehringer Ingelheim release, which states that the approval makes it the first targeted therapy that is available for the acute and chronic treatment of patients with GPP.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The in adults and in pediatric patients aged ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, according to an announcement from the manufacturer.
This is an expanded indication for spesolimab-sbzo, first approved in September 2022 for treating GPP flares. Developed by Boehringer Ingelheim and marketed under the name Spevigo, the product is an injectable antibody that blocks the IL-36 receptor, a key part of the pathway shown to be involved in the cause of GPP, which is rare and is a potentially-life-threatening disease.
According to a press release from the company, the FDA’s approval of the expanded indication was based on the results of a 48-week clinical trial of 123 patients (Effisayil 2), which showed that individuals who received spesolimab experienced a significant 84% reduction in GPP flares compared with those who received placebo. Among 30 study participants who received a high treatment dose, no flares were observed after week 4. Among all patients who received spesolimab-sbzo, treatment was associated with an increased incidence (defined as ≥ 9 cases per 100 patient-years) of injection site reactions, urinary tract infections, arthralgia, and pruritus compared with placebo.
Spesolimab-sbzo is currently available in 48 countries, according to the Boehringer Ingelheim release, which states that the approval makes it the first targeted therapy that is available for the acute and chronic treatment of patients with GPP.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New CRC stool test beats FIT for sensitivity but not specificity
, according to the large prospective BLUE-C study.
The multi-target assay by Exact Sciences Corporation, the makers of Cologuard, includes new biomarkers designed to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity. It showed a sensitivity for CRC of almost 94%, with more than 43% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and nearly 91% specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the study results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Adherence to CRC screening in the United States is well below the 80% national target, and the quest continues for noninvasive screening assays that might improve screening adherence, noted lead author Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“The test’s manufacturer developed a new version of its existing Cologuard FIT/DNA test because it took to heart the feedback from primary care providers and gastroenterologists about the test’s low specificity,” Dr. Imperiale said in an interview. “The goal of the new test was to improve specificity without losing, and perhaps even gaining, some sensitivity — a goal that is not easily accomplished when you’re trying to improve on a sensitivity for colorectal cancer that was already 92.3% in the current version of Cologuard.”
Compared with the earlier version of Cologuard, he added, the new generation retained sensitivity for CRC and advanced precancerous lesions or polyps while improving specificity by 30% (90.6% vs 86.6%) for advanced neoplasia — a combination of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions, he said. “This with the caveat, however, that the two versions were not compared head-to-head in this new study,” Dr. Imperiale said.
The higher specificity for advanced lesions is expected to translate to a lower false positive rate. Lowering false positive rates is crucial because that reduces the need for costly, invasive, and unnecessary colonoscopies, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research in NYU Langone Health’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology in New York City.
“Many physicians felt there were too many false positives with the existing version, and that is anxiety-provoking in patients and providers,” said Dr. Shaukat, who was not involved in the study.
In her view, however, the test’s moderate improvements in detecting certain lesions does not make it demonstrably superior to its predecessor, and there is always the possibility of higher cost to consider.
While acknowledging that a higher sensitivity for all advanced precancerous lesions would have been welcome, Dr. Imperiale said the test detected 75% of the most worrisome of such lesions — “the ones containing high-grade dysplastic cells and suggesting near-term conversion to cancer. And its ability to detect other advanced lesions improved as the size of the lesions increased.”
Testing details
Almost 21,000 asymptomatic participants age 40 years and older undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated at 186 US sites during the period 2019 to 2023. Of the cohort, 98 had CRC, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy.
Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. The new DNA test identified 92 of 98 participants with CRC and 76 of 82 participants with screening-relevant cancers. Among the findings for the new assay:
- Sensitivity for any-stage CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1- 97.7)
- Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6)
- Sensitivity for high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3)
- Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1- 91.0).
- Specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1)
- Specificity for negative colonoscopy was 93.3 (95% CI, 92.8-93.9)
- No adverse events occurred.
In the comparator assay, OC-AUTO FIT by Polymedco, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1-76.5) for CRC, 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5-25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions, and 47.4% (95% CI, 37.9-56.9) for high-grade dysplasia. In the comparator FIT, however, specificity was better across all age groups — at 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4-95.1) for advanced neoplasia, 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3- 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings, and 96.0% (95% CI, 95.5-96.4) for negative colonoscopy.
In another article in the same issue of NEJM, Guardant Health’s cell-free DNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions in an average-risk population.
An age-related decrease in specificity was observed with the new Cologuard test, but that did not concern Dr. Imperiale because the same observation was made with the current version. “In fact, the next-gen version appears to have less of an age-related decrease in specificity than the current version, although, again, the two versions were not tested head-to-head,” he noted.
The effect of age-related background methylation of DNA is well known, he explained. “Clinicians and older patients in the screening age range do need to be aware of this effect on specificity before ordering or agreeing to do the test. I do not see this as a stumbling block to implementation, but it does require discussion between patient and ordering provider.”
The new version of the DNA test is expected to be available in about a year.
According to Dr. Imperiale, further research is needed to ascertain the test’s acceptability and adherence rates and to quantify its yield in population-based screening. Determining its cost-effectiveness and making it easier to use are other goals. “And most importantly, the degree of reduction in the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer,” he said.
Cost-effectiveness and the selection of the testing interval may play roles in adherence, particularly in populations with lower rates of screening adherence than the general population, John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, San Diego, noted in a related editorial.
“Adherence to screening varies according to age group, including persons in the 45- to 49-year age group who are now eligible for average-risk screening,” he wrote. “It is hoped that these newer tests will increase use and adherence and elevate the percentage of the population undergoing screening in order to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer.”
This study was sponsored by Exact Sciences Corporation, which conducted the stool testing at its laboratories.
Dr. Imperiale had no competing interests to disclose. Several study co-authors reported employment with Exact Sciences, or stock and intellectual property ownership. Dr. Shaukat disclosed consulting for Freenome. Dr. Carethers reported ties to Avantor Inc. and Geneoscopy.
, according to the large prospective BLUE-C study.
The multi-target assay by Exact Sciences Corporation, the makers of Cologuard, includes new biomarkers designed to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity. It showed a sensitivity for CRC of almost 94%, with more than 43% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and nearly 91% specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the study results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Adherence to CRC screening in the United States is well below the 80% national target, and the quest continues for noninvasive screening assays that might improve screening adherence, noted lead author Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“The test’s manufacturer developed a new version of its existing Cologuard FIT/DNA test because it took to heart the feedback from primary care providers and gastroenterologists about the test’s low specificity,” Dr. Imperiale said in an interview. “The goal of the new test was to improve specificity without losing, and perhaps even gaining, some sensitivity — a goal that is not easily accomplished when you’re trying to improve on a sensitivity for colorectal cancer that was already 92.3% in the current version of Cologuard.”
Compared with the earlier version of Cologuard, he added, the new generation retained sensitivity for CRC and advanced precancerous lesions or polyps while improving specificity by 30% (90.6% vs 86.6%) for advanced neoplasia — a combination of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions, he said. “This with the caveat, however, that the two versions were not compared head-to-head in this new study,” Dr. Imperiale said.
The higher specificity for advanced lesions is expected to translate to a lower false positive rate. Lowering false positive rates is crucial because that reduces the need for costly, invasive, and unnecessary colonoscopies, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research in NYU Langone Health’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology in New York City.
“Many physicians felt there were too many false positives with the existing version, and that is anxiety-provoking in patients and providers,” said Dr. Shaukat, who was not involved in the study.
In her view, however, the test’s moderate improvements in detecting certain lesions does not make it demonstrably superior to its predecessor, and there is always the possibility of higher cost to consider.
While acknowledging that a higher sensitivity for all advanced precancerous lesions would have been welcome, Dr. Imperiale said the test detected 75% of the most worrisome of such lesions — “the ones containing high-grade dysplastic cells and suggesting near-term conversion to cancer. And its ability to detect other advanced lesions improved as the size of the lesions increased.”
Testing details
Almost 21,000 asymptomatic participants age 40 years and older undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated at 186 US sites during the period 2019 to 2023. Of the cohort, 98 had CRC, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy.
Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. The new DNA test identified 92 of 98 participants with CRC and 76 of 82 participants with screening-relevant cancers. Among the findings for the new assay:
- Sensitivity for any-stage CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1- 97.7)
- Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6)
- Sensitivity for high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3)
- Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1- 91.0).
- Specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1)
- Specificity for negative colonoscopy was 93.3 (95% CI, 92.8-93.9)
- No adverse events occurred.
In the comparator assay, OC-AUTO FIT by Polymedco, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1-76.5) for CRC, 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5-25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions, and 47.4% (95% CI, 37.9-56.9) for high-grade dysplasia. In the comparator FIT, however, specificity was better across all age groups — at 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4-95.1) for advanced neoplasia, 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3- 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings, and 96.0% (95% CI, 95.5-96.4) for negative colonoscopy.
In another article in the same issue of NEJM, Guardant Health’s cell-free DNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions in an average-risk population.
An age-related decrease in specificity was observed with the new Cologuard test, but that did not concern Dr. Imperiale because the same observation was made with the current version. “In fact, the next-gen version appears to have less of an age-related decrease in specificity than the current version, although, again, the two versions were not tested head-to-head,” he noted.
The effect of age-related background methylation of DNA is well known, he explained. “Clinicians and older patients in the screening age range do need to be aware of this effect on specificity before ordering or agreeing to do the test. I do not see this as a stumbling block to implementation, but it does require discussion between patient and ordering provider.”
The new version of the DNA test is expected to be available in about a year.
According to Dr. Imperiale, further research is needed to ascertain the test’s acceptability and adherence rates and to quantify its yield in population-based screening. Determining its cost-effectiveness and making it easier to use are other goals. “And most importantly, the degree of reduction in the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer,” he said.
Cost-effectiveness and the selection of the testing interval may play roles in adherence, particularly in populations with lower rates of screening adherence than the general population, John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, San Diego, noted in a related editorial.
“Adherence to screening varies according to age group, including persons in the 45- to 49-year age group who are now eligible for average-risk screening,” he wrote. “It is hoped that these newer tests will increase use and adherence and elevate the percentage of the population undergoing screening in order to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer.”
This study was sponsored by Exact Sciences Corporation, which conducted the stool testing at its laboratories.
Dr. Imperiale had no competing interests to disclose. Several study co-authors reported employment with Exact Sciences, or stock and intellectual property ownership. Dr. Shaukat disclosed consulting for Freenome. Dr. Carethers reported ties to Avantor Inc. and Geneoscopy.
, according to the large prospective BLUE-C study.
The multi-target assay by Exact Sciences Corporation, the makers of Cologuard, includes new biomarkers designed to increase specificity without decreasing sensitivity. It showed a sensitivity for CRC of almost 94%, with more than 43% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and nearly 91% specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the study results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Adherence to CRC screening in the United States is well below the 80% national target, and the quest continues for noninvasive screening assays that might improve screening adherence, noted lead author Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Indiana University School of medicine in Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“The test’s manufacturer developed a new version of its existing Cologuard FIT/DNA test because it took to heart the feedback from primary care providers and gastroenterologists about the test’s low specificity,” Dr. Imperiale said in an interview. “The goal of the new test was to improve specificity without losing, and perhaps even gaining, some sensitivity — a goal that is not easily accomplished when you’re trying to improve on a sensitivity for colorectal cancer that was already 92.3% in the current version of Cologuard.”
Compared with the earlier version of Cologuard, he added, the new generation retained sensitivity for CRC and advanced precancerous lesions or polyps while improving specificity by 30% (90.6% vs 86.6%) for advanced neoplasia — a combination of CRC and advanced precancerous lesions, he said. “This with the caveat, however, that the two versions were not compared head-to-head in this new study,” Dr. Imperiale said.
The higher specificity for advanced lesions is expected to translate to a lower false positive rate. Lowering false positive rates is crucial because that reduces the need for costly, invasive, and unnecessary colonoscopies, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of outcomes research in NYU Langone Health’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology in New York City.
“Many physicians felt there were too many false positives with the existing version, and that is anxiety-provoking in patients and providers,” said Dr. Shaukat, who was not involved in the study.
In her view, however, the test’s moderate improvements in detecting certain lesions does not make it demonstrably superior to its predecessor, and there is always the possibility of higher cost to consider.
While acknowledging that a higher sensitivity for all advanced precancerous lesions would have been welcome, Dr. Imperiale said the test detected 75% of the most worrisome of such lesions — “the ones containing high-grade dysplastic cells and suggesting near-term conversion to cancer. And its ability to detect other advanced lesions improved as the size of the lesions increased.”
Testing details
Almost 21,000 asymptomatic participants age 40 years and older undergoing screening colonoscopy were evaluated at 186 US sites during the period 2019 to 2023. Of the cohort, 98 had CRC, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy.
Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. The new DNA test identified 92 of 98 participants with CRC and 76 of 82 participants with screening-relevant cancers. Among the findings for the new assay:
- Sensitivity for any-stage CRC was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1- 97.7)
- Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3-45.6)
- Sensitivity for high-grade dysplasia was 74.6% (95% CI, 65.6-82.3)
- Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1- 91.0).
- Specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2-93.1)
- Specificity for negative colonoscopy was 93.3 (95% CI, 92.8-93.9)
- No adverse events occurred.
In the comparator assay, OC-AUTO FIT by Polymedco, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1-76.5) for CRC, 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5-25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions, and 47.4% (95% CI, 37.9-56.9) for high-grade dysplasia. In the comparator FIT, however, specificity was better across all age groups — at 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4-95.1) for advanced neoplasia, 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3- 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings, and 96.0% (95% CI, 95.5-96.4) for negative colonoscopy.
In another article in the same issue of NEJM, Guardant Health’s cell-free DNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions in an average-risk population.
An age-related decrease in specificity was observed with the new Cologuard test, but that did not concern Dr. Imperiale because the same observation was made with the current version. “In fact, the next-gen version appears to have less of an age-related decrease in specificity than the current version, although, again, the two versions were not tested head-to-head,” he noted.
The effect of age-related background methylation of DNA is well known, he explained. “Clinicians and older patients in the screening age range do need to be aware of this effect on specificity before ordering or agreeing to do the test. I do not see this as a stumbling block to implementation, but it does require discussion between patient and ordering provider.”
The new version of the DNA test is expected to be available in about a year.
According to Dr. Imperiale, further research is needed to ascertain the test’s acceptability and adherence rates and to quantify its yield in population-based screening. Determining its cost-effectiveness and making it easier to use are other goals. “And most importantly, the degree of reduction in the incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer,” he said.
Cost-effectiveness and the selection of the testing interval may play roles in adherence, particularly in populations with lower rates of screening adherence than the general population, John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, of the University of California, San Diego, noted in a related editorial.
“Adherence to screening varies according to age group, including persons in the 45- to 49-year age group who are now eligible for average-risk screening,” he wrote. “It is hoped that these newer tests will increase use and adherence and elevate the percentage of the population undergoing screening in order to reduce deaths from colorectal cancer.”
This study was sponsored by Exact Sciences Corporation, which conducted the stool testing at its laboratories.
Dr. Imperiale had no competing interests to disclose. Several study co-authors reported employment with Exact Sciences, or stock and intellectual property ownership. Dr. Shaukat disclosed consulting for Freenome. Dr. Carethers reported ties to Avantor Inc. and Geneoscopy.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Systematic Viral Testing in Emergency Departments Has Limited Benefit for General Population
Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.
Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.
“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.
“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”
The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
Rapid Viral Testing
Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.
In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.
Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.
In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.
“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.
In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).
Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.
“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
Future Research
Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.
“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.
Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.
“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”
For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.
“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.
The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.
Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.
“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.
“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”
The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
Rapid Viral Testing
Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.
In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.
Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.
In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.
“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.
In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).
Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.
“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
Future Research
Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.
“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.
Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.
“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”
For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.
“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.
The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.
Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.
“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.
“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”
The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
Rapid Viral Testing
Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.
In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.
Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.
In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.
“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.
In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).
Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.
“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
Future Research
Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.
“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.
Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.
“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”
For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.
“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.
The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Can an Ingestible Vibrating Capsule Tackle Obesity?
A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.
The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.
“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.
In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.
The research was published online in Science Advances.
Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment
Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.
She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.
However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.
She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.
The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.
Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.
Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.
“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”
“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”
And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”
He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”
The VIBES Approach
The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.
Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.
The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”
Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”
“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”
The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.
Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.
Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.
Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine
To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.
The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.
To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:
- No treatment (control)
- Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
- Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube
After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.
Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).
In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.
The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.
Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).
“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.
The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”
“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.
The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.
Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.
No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.
The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.
“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.
In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.
The research was published online in Science Advances.
Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment
Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.
She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.
However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.
She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.
The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.
Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.
Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.
“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”
“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”
And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”
He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”
The VIBES Approach
The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.
Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.
The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”
Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”
“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”
The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.
Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.
Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.
Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine
To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.
The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.
To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:
- No treatment (control)
- Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
- Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube
After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.
Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).
In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.
The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.
Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).
“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.
The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”
“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.
The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.
Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.
No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel vibrating capsule that signals a postprandial feeling of fullness reduced both food and energy intake and lowered weight gain in animal studies, said researchers who are developing it as a more affordable treatment for obesity.
The capsule, called the Vibrating Ingestible BioElectronic Stimulator (VIBES), is the size of a large adult multivitamin pill and is meant to be swallowed before a meal. The VIBES capsule works by stimulating gastric stretch receptors that signal the brain through the vagal nerve and stimulate a sense of satiety.
“Application of mechanoreceptor biology could transform our capacity to help patients suffering from nutritional disorders,” wrote Shriya S. Srinivasan, PhD, at Harvard University, Boston, and her coauthors. Srinivasan, founder and director of the Biohybrid Organs and Neuroprosthetics (BIONIC) Lab, led the team that designed and prototyped the VIBES capsule.
In a pig model, the VIBES activated mechanoreceptors and triggered gastric mucosal receptors, the researchers reported. Across 108 meals, swine treated with VIBES had nearly 40% reduced food intake compared to controls given a sham pill, with no apparent neural adaptation observed.
The research was published online in Science Advances.
Satiety Signaling in Obesity Treatment
Caroline M. Apovian, MD, codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the study, said the concept of creating the illusion of satiety is not a new one.
She was part of team that showed medically meaningful weight loss at 2 years with a surgically implanted device that intermittently blocked the vagus nerves near the junction of the stomach and esophagus. “So we’ve been aware of the potential of things like this to produce a sense of satiety and weight loss,” she said.
However, Dr. Apovian believed that a capsule such as VIBES faces a number of hurdles before it is widely used in the clinic, even if it is successfully tested on humans.
She pointed to a superabsorbent hydrogel device, Plenity (Gelesis), delivered as three oral capsules that expand with water in the stomach to create a feeling of satiety. While approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is not widely used, she said, as there are “hurdles” for patients to overcome, particularly in obtaining it from the pharmacy.
The VIBES capsule would in theory be acceptable to patients, Apovian said, but they are “overwhelmed by the media attention” on medications such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, which promise dramatic weight loss, far higher than the sorts of figures VIBES could achieve.
Nevertheless, the capsule could form a part of the obesity treatment armamentarium, with the idea that it could be combined with “an agent that would act more centrally to change the body weight setpoint,” she said.
Allan Geliebter, PhD, professor, department of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the thinking behind the capsule is a “clever, original approach,” but he is personally skeptical that people will take them.
“It’s the largest possible capsule that’s on the market today that is approved by the FDA for swallowing,” he said, and people “have to assume it’s going to come out the other end.”
“I think it will,” Dr. Geliebter added, “but if you’re taking at least two of these a day, what’s the guarantee one won’t get stuck along the ride?”
And when it does come out, “maybe it will be visible, maybe not,” but either way, “I can see people being anxious.”
He agreed with Dr. Apovian that the arrival of GLP-1 agonists has made obesity “a tough market to compete in right now,” although he noted that the drugs “do have side effects, and not everybody tolerates them.”
The VIBES Approach
The authors noted that another approved satiety device, intragastic balloons, also were designed to induce early satiety through distension of the stomach, but they do not lead to sustained changes in hunger or eating behavior due to neural adaptation to the continuing distension.
Moreover, some balloons have been withdrawn due to safety concerns, including several deaths.
The team reasoned a mechanism or device “capable of selective mechanoreceptor activation would pose great clinical value.”
Dr. Srinivasan explained: “While vibration has been known to create proprioceptive illusions in muscles, to our knowledge, no one has tried this in the stomach.”
“Given my penchant for mechanoreceptor physiology, I was curious to see if stretch receptors in the smooth muscle could be manipulated by mechanostimulation.”
The team designed an orally ingestible 3D-printed capsule in three sections, one of which allows entry of gastric fluid to dissolve a glucose layer. This causes the release of a spring-loaded pogo pin that completes a circuit to activate the vibrating motor.
Initial testing demonstrated that the capsule, which is the size of a triple zero pill, vibrated for an average of 38.3 minutes, which was deemed acceptable as “meals are generally consumed in a 20- to 30-min window and gastric contents undergo primary mixing in approximately an hour,” the authors wrote.
Immersing the capsule in simulated gastric fluid for 24 hours and simulated intestinal fluid for 10 days at 37 °C didn’t lead to changes in the capsule; thus, it “would not damage the gastrointestinal tract even if it were to reside in the stomach for a full day or in the intestines for over a week,” the authors wrote.
Testing VIBES Satiety in Swine
To test the capsule’s performance as a potential obesity treatment, the researchers turned to a model of Yorkshire pigs ages 4-6 months. Their “gastric anatomy is similar to that of humans,” the authors wrote, and they have been widely used to evaluate biomedical devices.
The researchers found that the vibration from the capsule not only induced the afferent neural activation of gastric mechanoreceptors sensitive to stomach distention but also triggered gastric secretory activity via by what the authors call “stroking” of the gastric mucosa.
To examine the impact of the capsule on hunger and feeding behavior, they monitored the food intake of four pigs in each of three conditions:
- No treatment (control)
- Treated with a sham capsule tethered via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (PEG-control)
- Treated with a VIBES capsule tethered via a PEG tube
After 2 weeks, VIBES-treated pigs consumed an average of 58.1% of their meals (n = 108 meals), PEG-control pigs consumed 84.1% (n = 100 meals), and the control group consumed 78.4% (n = 96) meals among PEG-only swine.
Per animal on average, the capsule reduced intake by 31% (P < .001), and the energy consumed per meal for each treated animal was significantly lower than that in the control period (P < .001), with no significant difference between the control and PEG-only groups (P < .1).
In a cross-over experiment, treating the swine for three meals, leaving them untreated for three meals, then treating them for another three revealed that intake increased by 38% during the untreated window.
The crossover results suggest the capsule “functions through temporal vagal activation, with little neural adaptation or long-term effect,” the team wrote.
Weight gain in VIBES-treated pigs was also significantly lower than that in the control and in the PEG-control groups (P < .05).
“Together, these data suggest that the VIBES pill significantly decreases food intake and slows the rate of weight gain in a large animal model,” the team wrote.
The VIBES capsule passed out of the treated pigs after an average of 4.4 days vs 8.3 days for a sham pill. As the “pigs generally take 7-9 days to excrete a given meal,” Dr. Srinivasan noted, “4 days is actually quite fast.”
“In humans, we expect this to pass on the same timescale as a regular meal,” she said, or approximately 24 hours. With no safety concerns identified in the study, Dr. Srinivasan did not expect there to be any significant concern over having multiple devices in the intestines from ingesting one with every meal.
The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, alongside support to individual authors via a Schmidt Science Fellowship and a National Science Foundation grant to the Computing Research Association for the CIFellows Project.
Dr. Srinivasan and two coauthors were coinventors on a patent application (application filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology describing the developments discussed here). Another author declared a consulting relationship with Novo Nordisk.
No other relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.