Conference Coverage

The use of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections has been linked to an increased risk of mortality in patients with diabetic retinopathy in a new study, sounding a note of caution regarding the cardiovascular safety of these agents in clinical practice, an investigator said.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

There was no increased risk of MI or stroke risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections versus steroid injections or laser photocoagulation in the study, which was based on analysis of health records for more than 60,000 treated individuals.

However, a “signal” was observed for increased risk of death from any cause among patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, and especially so in those with a history of cardiovascular events, said investigator Miin Roh, MD, PhD, a retina surgeon and instructor in ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This study suggests that we would have to be very careful in giving anti-VEGF injections in patients for diabetic retinopathy, especially when you’re giving it for a long-term period,” Dr. Roh said in a virtual presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.


 

Report of a mortality signal

The study by Dr. Roh and colleagues included patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, identified in health claims databases who started intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, intravitreal steroid injections, or laser photocoagulation between 2009 and 2017.

Their analysis included 30,741 patients who received anti-VEGF injections and 30,741 matched controls who received laser or steroid treatment.

There were no differences in the primary composite outcome of MI or stroke, with 674 events in the anti-VEGF group and 708 events in the laser or steroid group over a 365-day treatment period, Dr. Roh reported.

By contrast, the investigator said she saw a signal for increased risk of all-cause mortality in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Over a 180-day treatment period, there was a “slight numerical increase” in all-cause mortality, with 144 deaths in the anti-VEGF group and 115 in the control group. That translated into a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.60).

Looking at a 365-day treatment period, there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the anti-VEGF group that this time was statistically significant, she said, with 311 and 236 events, respectively (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57).

The mortality signal was especially strong among individuals who had a prior history of a cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Roh.

In patients with cardiovascular disease history, there were 219 deaths from any cause in the anti-VEGF group and 153 in the laser or steroid group (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 3.10-11.22) over a 365-day period, the investigator reported. By comparison, in patients with no cardiovascular disease history, there were 95 and 96 deaths (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33).
 

More research needed

Although these findings are “hypothesis generating,” exploration of other datasets would be warranted to measure mortality risk among patients receiving treatment for diabetic neuropathy, said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA.

“It’s something that we need now to study more rigorously,” Dr. Gabbay said in an interview. “It doesn’t prove that there’s a connection, but it tells us that this is worth studying.”

The current study is not a randomized comparison, which means that the people chosen to receive anti-VEGF therapy, as opposed to steroid injections or laser treatment, may differ in other ways that are associated with mortality, he said.

“It’s always good to monitor these patients,” Dr. Gabbay added. “The good news is that these individuals typically are coming in, oftentimes monthly for repeated injections, and so there’s an opportunity to monitor any changes.”

Dr. Roh reported that she is a coinvestigator in a Boehringer Ingelheim–initiated study that is not directly related to the topic of this research.

The use of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections has been linked to an increased risk of mortality in patients with diabetic retinopathy in a new study, sounding a note of caution regarding the cardiovascular safety of these agents in clinical practice, an investigator said.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

There was no increased risk of MI or stroke risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections versus steroid injections or laser photocoagulation in the study, which was based on analysis of health records for more than 60,000 treated individuals.

However, a “signal” was observed for increased risk of death from any cause among patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, and especially so in those with a history of cardiovascular events, said investigator Miin Roh, MD, PhD, a retina surgeon and instructor in ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This study suggests that we would have to be very careful in giving anti-VEGF injections in patients for diabetic retinopathy, especially when you’re giving it for a long-term period,” Dr. Roh said in a virtual presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.


 

Report of a mortality signal

The study by Dr. Roh and colleagues included patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, identified in health claims databases who started intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, intravitreal steroid injections, or laser photocoagulation between 2009 and 2017.

Their analysis included 30,741 patients who received anti-VEGF injections and 30,741 matched controls who received laser or steroid treatment.

There were no differences in the primary composite outcome of MI or stroke, with 674 events in the anti-VEGF group and 708 events in the laser or steroid group over a 365-day treatment period, Dr. Roh reported.

By contrast, the investigator said she saw a signal for increased risk of all-cause mortality in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Over a 180-day treatment period, there was a “slight numerical increase” in all-cause mortality, with 144 deaths in the anti-VEGF group and 115 in the control group. That translated into a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.60).

Looking at a 365-day treatment period, there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the anti-VEGF group that this time was statistically significant, she said, with 311 and 236 events, respectively (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57).

The mortality signal was especially strong among individuals who had a prior history of a cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Roh.

In patients with cardiovascular disease history, there were 219 deaths from any cause in the anti-VEGF group and 153 in the laser or steroid group (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 3.10-11.22) over a 365-day period, the investigator reported. By comparison, in patients with no cardiovascular disease history, there were 95 and 96 deaths (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33).
 

More research needed

Although these findings are “hypothesis generating,” exploration of other datasets would be warranted to measure mortality risk among patients receiving treatment for diabetic neuropathy, said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA.

“It’s something that we need now to study more rigorously,” Dr. Gabbay said in an interview. “It doesn’t prove that there’s a connection, but it tells us that this is worth studying.”

The current study is not a randomized comparison, which means that the people chosen to receive anti-VEGF therapy, as opposed to steroid injections or laser treatment, may differ in other ways that are associated with mortality, he said.

“It’s always good to monitor these patients,” Dr. Gabbay added. “The good news is that these individuals typically are coming in, oftentimes monthly for repeated injections, and so there’s an opportunity to monitor any changes.”

Dr. Roh reported that she is a coinvestigator in a Boehringer Ingelheim–initiated study that is not directly related to the topic of this research.

The use of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections has been linked to an increased risk of mortality in patients with diabetic retinopathy in a new study, sounding a note of caution regarding the cardiovascular safety of these agents in clinical practice, an investigator said.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

There was no increased risk of MI or stroke risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections versus steroid injections or laser photocoagulation in the study, which was based on analysis of health records for more than 60,000 treated individuals.

However, a “signal” was observed for increased risk of death from any cause among patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, and especially so in those with a history of cardiovascular events, said investigator Miin Roh, MD, PhD, a retina surgeon and instructor in ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This study suggests that we would have to be very careful in giving anti-VEGF injections in patients for diabetic retinopathy, especially when you’re giving it for a long-term period,” Dr. Roh said in a virtual presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.


 

Report of a mortality signal

The study by Dr. Roh and colleagues included patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, identified in health claims databases who started intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, intravitreal steroid injections, or laser photocoagulation between 2009 and 2017.

Their analysis included 30,741 patients who received anti-VEGF injections and 30,741 matched controls who received laser or steroid treatment.

There were no differences in the primary composite outcome of MI or stroke, with 674 events in the anti-VEGF group and 708 events in the laser or steroid group over a 365-day treatment period, Dr. Roh reported.

By contrast, the investigator said she saw a signal for increased risk of all-cause mortality in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Over a 180-day treatment period, there was a “slight numerical increase” in all-cause mortality, with 144 deaths in the anti-VEGF group and 115 in the control group. That translated into a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.60).

Looking at a 365-day treatment period, there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the anti-VEGF group that this time was statistically significant, she said, with 311 and 236 events, respectively (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57).

The mortality signal was especially strong among individuals who had a prior history of a cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Roh.

In patients with cardiovascular disease history, there were 219 deaths from any cause in the anti-VEGF group and 153 in the laser or steroid group (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 3.10-11.22) over a 365-day period, the investigator reported. By comparison, in patients with no cardiovascular disease history, there were 95 and 96 deaths (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33).
 

More research needed

Although these findings are “hypothesis generating,” exploration of other datasets would be warranted to measure mortality risk among patients receiving treatment for diabetic neuropathy, said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA.

“It’s something that we need now to study more rigorously,” Dr. Gabbay said in an interview. “It doesn’t prove that there’s a connection, but it tells us that this is worth studying.”

The current study is not a randomized comparison, which means that the people chosen to receive anti-VEGF therapy, as opposed to steroid injections or laser treatment, may differ in other ways that are associated with mortality, he said.

“It’s always good to monitor these patients,” Dr. Gabbay added. “The good news is that these individuals typically are coming in, oftentimes monthly for repeated injections, and so there’s an opportunity to monitor any changes.”

Dr. Roh reported that she is a coinvestigator in a Boehringer Ingelheim–initiated study that is not directly related to the topic of this research.

A proposed rapid diagnostic test for hepatitis C viral infections that combines an inexpensive but lower-sensitivity core-antigen test with lab RNA confirmation of negative tests could expand testing and same-day initiation of antiviral therapy in places where resources are limited, investigators said.

Applying the proposed method to the Republic of Georgia, with a hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence of 5.4% as reported by the World Health Organization, would result in a 95.4% diagnosis rate, compared with 78.8% for lab-based RNA testing, which is the standard of care. Applied to Malaysia, the proposed method would boost diagnosis rates from 57.0% to 91.2%, reported Madeline Adee, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston and colleagues.

“We found that a novel core antigen rapid diagnostic test for HCV could improve the diagnosis rate and result in cost savings. Although not yet developed, such a test could be a game changer and have a substantial impact on the feasibility and cost of HCV elimination, especially in low and middle-income countries,” they wrote in a poster presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Although rapid diagnostic tests for HCV can improve diagnosis and treatment rates, currently available molecular tests are expensive and require a solid clinical laboratory infrastructure, which can put such tests out of the reach for clinicians in low- or middle-income countries. Rapid immunoassays based on HCV core antigens are comparative bargains, but their sensitivity ranges from 70% to 90%; in contrast, the third-generation HCV enzyme immunoassay has about a 98% sensitivity.
 

Could it work?

The proposed testing method would be likely to improve diagnosis, but whether that would translate into increased treatment is uncertain, commented Lesley Miller, MD, who specializes in HCV screening and treatment in underserved populations at Emory University, Atlanta.

“When we’re talking about hepatitis C, it’s all about the care cascade, the drop-off at each step from those who have the disease and aren’t diagnosed, to those who are tested and only partially diagnosed because they don’t have a confirmed infection, to those that get into care, get treated, and get cured,” she said in an interview.

“It’s all about closing the gaps in the care cascade in order to achieve elimination of the virus, which is what we’re all trying to do,” she added.

She pointed that there are certain at-risk populations in the United States, such as injectable-drug users, who might be able to benefit from such a system.

“These folks often have less access to traditional care, so bringing rapid testing and care to where those folks are is really important, so if we can deploy mobile units to areas where there is high prevalence and do it at the point of care, it simplifies the entire process,” she said.

Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD, a senior fellow in health economics and financing at the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview that the proposed model could eliminate the step in testing in which patients are required to return for confirmation.

“People don’t always come back for further testing, so if you can do it immediately and have the results of a screening test, you might be able to get people to come back more quickly. You still have the problem of the high cost of treatment, but this would at least make it a little more convenient,” he said.

He noted that the success of the strategy would be dependent on the sensitivity of the rapid core antigen test, it’s cost relative to HCV RNA testing, and whether the availability of the rapid test would translate into an improvement in follow-up.

Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Hoerger were involved in the study.
 

Evaluating the approach

To determine whether a lower-cost rapid test could be cost effective, the researchers created a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV to compare potential outcomes from either core antigen rapid diagnostic testing with a base case sensitivity for HCV viremia of 80% with lab-based RNA confirmation for negative results or the current standard of care with lab-based RNA confirmation only.

The model incorporated METAVIR stage F0-F4, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death. The investigators determined the baseline characteristics of HCV patients in each country based on different distributions of sex, HCV genotype, and METAVIR fibrosis stage.

They simulated outcomes for 10,000 adults in the Republic of Georgia, with an HCV prevalence of 5.4%, and Malaysia, with an HCV prevalence of 1.5%.

The model considers costs from a health care payer’s perspective, and the investigations performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of testing pathways might change when various factors were plugged into the model.

As noted before, the investigators determined that the core antigen rapid test algorithm would improve diagnosis rates in Georgia from 78.8% to 95.4% and in Malaysia from 57.9% to 91.2%.

The use of the rapid test would also increase quality-adjusted life-years in Georgia by 207 per 10,000 and in Malaysia by 146 per 10,000.

Cost savings, primarily from averting the costs of care for patients with HCV, begin within the first year of the model. Over 50 years, the lifetime horizon cost savings in Georgia would be $232,000 per 10,000 people, and the corresponding savings in Malaysia would be $504,000 per 10,000 people.

Even when allowing for variations in parameters, the core antigen rapid diagnostic test approach remained the preferred model, the investigators reported.

The study was supported by the global health agency Unitaid. The researchers, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Hoerger reported no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

A proposed rapid diagnostic test for hepatitis C viral infections that combines an inexpensive but lower-sensitivity core-antigen test with lab RNA confirmation of negative tests could expand testing and same-day initiation of antiviral therapy in places where resources are limited, investigators said.

Applying the proposed method to the Republic of Georgia, with a hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence of 5.4% as reported by the World Health Organization, would result in a 95.4% diagnosis rate, compared with 78.8% for lab-based RNA testing, which is the standard of care. Applied to Malaysia, the proposed method would boost diagnosis rates from 57.0% to 91.2%, reported Madeline Adee, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston and colleagues.

“We found that a novel core antigen rapid diagnostic test for HCV could improve the diagnosis rate and result in cost savings. Although not yet developed, such a test could be a game changer and have a substantial impact on the feasibility and cost of HCV elimination, especially in low and middle-income countries,” they wrote in a poster presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Although rapid diagnostic tests for HCV can improve diagnosis and treatment rates, currently available molecular tests are expensive and require a solid clinical laboratory infrastructure, which can put such tests out of the reach for clinicians in low- or middle-income countries. Rapid immunoassays based on HCV core antigens are comparative bargains, but their sensitivity ranges from 70% to 90%; in contrast, the third-generation HCV enzyme immunoassay has about a 98% sensitivity.
 

Could it work?

The proposed testing method would be likely to improve diagnosis, but whether that would translate into increased treatment is uncertain, commented Lesley Miller, MD, who specializes in HCV screening and treatment in underserved populations at Emory University, Atlanta.

“When we’re talking about hepatitis C, it’s all about the care cascade, the drop-off at each step from those who have the disease and aren’t diagnosed, to those who are tested and only partially diagnosed because they don’t have a confirmed infection, to those that get into care, get treated, and get cured,” she said in an interview.

“It’s all about closing the gaps in the care cascade in order to achieve elimination of the virus, which is what we’re all trying to do,” she added.

She pointed that there are certain at-risk populations in the United States, such as injectable-drug users, who might be able to benefit from such a system.

“These folks often have less access to traditional care, so bringing rapid testing and care to where those folks are is really important, so if we can deploy mobile units to areas where there is high prevalence and do it at the point of care, it simplifies the entire process,” she said.

Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD, a senior fellow in health economics and financing at the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview that the proposed model could eliminate the step in testing in which patients are required to return for confirmation.

“People don’t always come back for further testing, so if you can do it immediately and have the results of a screening test, you might be able to get people to come back more quickly. You still have the problem of the high cost of treatment, but this would at least make it a little more convenient,” he said.

He noted that the success of the strategy would be dependent on the sensitivity of the rapid core antigen test, it’s cost relative to HCV RNA testing, and whether the availability of the rapid test would translate into an improvement in follow-up.

Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Hoerger were involved in the study.
 

Evaluating the approach

To determine whether a lower-cost rapid test could be cost effective, the researchers created a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV to compare potential outcomes from either core antigen rapid diagnostic testing with a base case sensitivity for HCV viremia of 80% with lab-based RNA confirmation for negative results or the current standard of care with lab-based RNA confirmation only.

The model incorporated METAVIR stage F0-F4, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death. The investigators determined the baseline characteristics of HCV patients in each country based on different distributions of sex, HCV genotype, and METAVIR fibrosis stage.

They simulated outcomes for 10,000 adults in the Republic of Georgia, with an HCV prevalence of 5.4%, and Malaysia, with an HCV prevalence of 1.5%.

The model considers costs from a health care payer’s perspective, and the investigations performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of testing pathways might change when various factors were plugged into the model.

As noted before, the investigators determined that the core antigen rapid test algorithm would improve diagnosis rates in Georgia from 78.8% to 95.4% and in Malaysia from 57.9% to 91.2%.

The use of the rapid test would also increase quality-adjusted life-years in Georgia by 207 per 10,000 and in Malaysia by 146 per 10,000.

Cost savings, primarily from averting the costs of care for patients with HCV, begin within the first year of the model. Over 50 years, the lifetime horizon cost savings in Georgia would be $232,000 per 10,000 people, and the corresponding savings in Malaysia would be $504,000 per 10,000 people.

Even when allowing for variations in parameters, the core antigen rapid diagnostic test approach remained the preferred model, the investigators reported.

The study was supported by the global health agency Unitaid. The researchers, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Hoerger reported no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

A proposed rapid diagnostic test for hepatitis C viral infections that combines an inexpensive but lower-sensitivity core-antigen test with lab RNA confirmation of negative tests could expand testing and same-day initiation of antiviral therapy in places where resources are limited, investigators said.

Applying the proposed method to the Republic of Georgia, with a hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence of 5.4% as reported by the World Health Organization, would result in a 95.4% diagnosis rate, compared with 78.8% for lab-based RNA testing, which is the standard of care. Applied to Malaysia, the proposed method would boost diagnosis rates from 57.0% to 91.2%, reported Madeline Adee, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital’s Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston and colleagues.

“We found that a novel core antigen rapid diagnostic test for HCV could improve the diagnosis rate and result in cost savings. Although not yet developed, such a test could be a game changer and have a substantial impact on the feasibility and cost of HCV elimination, especially in low and middle-income countries,” they wrote in a poster presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Although rapid diagnostic tests for HCV can improve diagnosis and treatment rates, currently available molecular tests are expensive and require a solid clinical laboratory infrastructure, which can put such tests out of the reach for clinicians in low- or middle-income countries. Rapid immunoassays based on HCV core antigens are comparative bargains, but their sensitivity ranges from 70% to 90%; in contrast, the third-generation HCV enzyme immunoassay has about a 98% sensitivity.
 

Could it work?

The proposed testing method would be likely to improve diagnosis, but whether that would translate into increased treatment is uncertain, commented Lesley Miller, MD, who specializes in HCV screening and treatment in underserved populations at Emory University, Atlanta.

“When we’re talking about hepatitis C, it’s all about the care cascade, the drop-off at each step from those who have the disease and aren’t diagnosed, to those who are tested and only partially diagnosed because they don’t have a confirmed infection, to those that get into care, get treated, and get cured,” she said in an interview.

“It’s all about closing the gaps in the care cascade in order to achieve elimination of the virus, which is what we’re all trying to do,” she added.

She pointed that there are certain at-risk populations in the United States, such as injectable-drug users, who might be able to benefit from such a system.

“These folks often have less access to traditional care, so bringing rapid testing and care to where those folks are is really important, so if we can deploy mobile units to areas where there is high prevalence and do it at the point of care, it simplifies the entire process,” she said.

Thomas J. Hoerger, PhD, a senior fellow in health economics and financing at the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview that the proposed model could eliminate the step in testing in which patients are required to return for confirmation.

“People don’t always come back for further testing, so if you can do it immediately and have the results of a screening test, you might be able to get people to come back more quickly. You still have the problem of the high cost of treatment, but this would at least make it a little more convenient,” he said.

He noted that the success of the strategy would be dependent on the sensitivity of the rapid core antigen test, it’s cost relative to HCV RNA testing, and whether the availability of the rapid test would translate into an improvement in follow-up.

Neither Dr. Miller nor Dr. Hoerger were involved in the study.
 

Evaluating the approach

To determine whether a lower-cost rapid test could be cost effective, the researchers created a microsimulation model of the natural history of HCV to compare potential outcomes from either core antigen rapid diagnostic testing with a base case sensitivity for HCV viremia of 80% with lab-based RNA confirmation for negative results or the current standard of care with lab-based RNA confirmation only.

The model incorporated METAVIR stage F0-F4, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death. The investigators determined the baseline characteristics of HCV patients in each country based on different distributions of sex, HCV genotype, and METAVIR fibrosis stage.

They simulated outcomes for 10,000 adults in the Republic of Georgia, with an HCV prevalence of 5.4%, and Malaysia, with an HCV prevalence of 1.5%.

The model considers costs from a health care payer’s perspective, and the investigations performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of testing pathways might change when various factors were plugged into the model.

As noted before, the investigators determined that the core antigen rapid test algorithm would improve diagnosis rates in Georgia from 78.8% to 95.4% and in Malaysia from 57.9% to 91.2%.

The use of the rapid test would also increase quality-adjusted life-years in Georgia by 207 per 10,000 and in Malaysia by 146 per 10,000.

Cost savings, primarily from averting the costs of care for patients with HCV, begin within the first year of the model. Over 50 years, the lifetime horizon cost savings in Georgia would be $232,000 per 10,000 people, and the corresponding savings in Malaysia would be $504,000 per 10,000 people.

Even when allowing for variations in parameters, the core antigen rapid diagnostic test approach remained the preferred model, the investigators reported.

The study was supported by the global health agency Unitaid. The researchers, Dr. Miller, and Dr. Hoerger reported no conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigational liver dialysis device (DIALIVE) was associated with significantly greater survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), compared with the standard of care in a multicenter randomized study.

Among 30 evaluable patients with ACLF from alcoholic cirrhosis randomized to treatment with the DIALIVE system or standard of care, two-thirds of patients assigned to DIALIVE had both survived and experienced resolution of ACLF by 28 days, compared with one-third of patients assigned to standard of care, reported Banwari Agarwal, MBBS, MD from the Royal Free Hospital in London at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
 

Different from MARS

The DIALIVE system differs from the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) liver dialysis system in that DIALIVE removes and replaces albumin, including proinflammatory albumin, rather than filtering and recirculating it, he explained.

“It addresses systemic inflammation, which wasn’t quite the case with MARS,” he said in the question-and-answer portion of his presentation in a general session.

In patients with ACLF, the risk of 28-day mortality increases substantially as the grade of ACLF increases.

“ACLF, however, is potentially reversible, and the initial grade at presentation undergoes changes over time during the natural course of the illness, with some patients deteriorating, some improving, and some even achieving complete ACLF resolution. The final grade is reached by days 3-7, and it is this final grade which determines their future outcome trajectory. I therefore propose that ACLF resolution in itself is an important therapeutic target,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Agarwal and coinvestigators from eight centers in six European countries enrolled patients with a history indicative of alcohol-related cirrhosis, at least one acute decompensation event, and progression to ACLF grades 1, 2, or 3a.

Patients with an international normalized ratio above 3 were excluded, as were those with more than three organ failures, uncontrolled infections, patients with primary respiratory organ failure, and those with hemodynamic instability refractory to volume resuscitation and low-dose vasopressors.

A total of 32 patients, of whom 30 were evaluable, were randomized to receive liver dialysis in three to five DIALIVE sessions lasting 8-12 hours each (15 evaluable patients) or to standard of care at participating institutions (15 patients).

The investigators looked at safety of the device (the primary endpoint) in all patients who received at least one DIALIVE treatment (safety population), and a modified safety population of patients who received at least three DIALIVE treatments.

The median patient age in each arm was 49 years, and all patients had alcoholic cirrhosis, with alcoholic hepatitis accounting for at least one decompensation event. In addition, about 25% of patients in each arm had decompensation with infections and/or sepsis as precipitating factors.
 

Safety

Serious adverse events on days 1-10 occurred in 11 of 17 patients in the DIALIVE arm, and in 8 in the standard-of-care arm. In the DIALIVE arm, there were seven treatment-related serious device events, three unexpected serious device events (anemia, septic shock, and hypotension), and one patient discontinued dialysis after having unsafe levels of thrombocytopenia.

Four patients in the DIALIVE arm died on study. The first two died on day 1 one from hypotension, coagulopathy, and multiorgan failure, and this prompted a change in the protocol mandating that DIALIVE be conducted only in an ICU setting with more invasive monitoring and more frequent lab analysis of clotting and other biochemical parameters. Of the two other patients in the DIALIVE arm who on died on study, one died from non-MI cardiac arrest on day 8, and one patient with ACLF grade 3 and a European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure (CLIF)–ACLF score of 68 died from multiorgan failure.

“I must emphasize that even this very sick patient tolerated the device very, very well,” Dr. Agarwal said.

In the standard-of-care arm, two patients died from progressive liver failure on days 17 and 27, respectively, and one died on day 17 from bacterial infections, bleeding, and progressive liver failure.

There were eight instances of filters clotting out of 64 filters used in total, and four episodes of device deficiency, including two instances where tubing could not be disconnected from an Oxiris filter during setup of the DIALIVE circuit, requiring use of new DIALIVE kits; one use of an incorrect dialysis fluid; and one incorrect setup of the DIALIVE circuit.
 

Significant improvements in many scores

In the DIALIVE group, there were significant improvements over baseline at day 10 in both liver scores (P < .05) and brain scores (P < .001). In contrast, in the standard-of-care group there were no improvements in individual organ scores, and respiration scores were significantly worse (P < .01).

DIALIVE was also associated with significant improvements in CLIF-C organ failure scores, compared with standard of care at day 5 and day 10 (P = .021 and .001, respectively); CLIF-C–ACLF scores at days 5 and 10 (P = .045 and .023); and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at day 5 (P = .028).

In the DIALIVE group, ­40% of patients had ACLF resolution by day 5, and 66.7% had resolution by day 10. In the standard-of-care arm, 15% had resolution on day 5, and 33.3% had resolution on day 10. DIALIVE was also associated with a significantly faster median time to resolution, compared with standard of care (10 days vs. not reached; P = .0307). At 28 days, 10 of 15 evaluable patients were alive and had resolution of ACLF with DIALIVE versus 5 of 15 with standard of care (P = .0281).

Dr. Agarwal said that the data justify the implementation of late-phase clinical trials of the liver dialysis device.
 

‘Hopeful’ findings

“It’s very early, but we’re really desperate in finding something to bridge to transplantation,” commented Tobias Boettler, MD, from the University of Freiburg (Germany), who was not involved in the study.

“I think this is very hopeful,” said Dr. Boettler, who moderated the briefing where Dr. Agarwal summarized the study findings.

In the question and answer following the talk in a general session, moderator Philip N. Newsome, MD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England) asked whether patients who were not treated should have been included in the analysis.

Dr. Agarwal replied that “the whole idea behind this study was to understand what this device does to these patients, and how these patients react to this device, so really not looking at the efficacy.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 initiative. Dr. Agarwal received a study grant from the initiative, but had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Boettler and Dr. Newsome had no disclosures relevant to the study.

An investigational liver dialysis device (DIALIVE) was associated with significantly greater survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), compared with the standard of care in a multicenter randomized study.

Among 30 evaluable patients with ACLF from alcoholic cirrhosis randomized to treatment with the DIALIVE system or standard of care, two-thirds of patients assigned to DIALIVE had both survived and experienced resolution of ACLF by 28 days, compared with one-third of patients assigned to standard of care, reported Banwari Agarwal, MBBS, MD from the Royal Free Hospital in London at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
 

Different from MARS

The DIALIVE system differs from the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) liver dialysis system in that DIALIVE removes and replaces albumin, including proinflammatory albumin, rather than filtering and recirculating it, he explained.

“It addresses systemic inflammation, which wasn’t quite the case with MARS,” he said in the question-and-answer portion of his presentation in a general session.

In patients with ACLF, the risk of 28-day mortality increases substantially as the grade of ACLF increases.

“ACLF, however, is potentially reversible, and the initial grade at presentation undergoes changes over time during the natural course of the illness, with some patients deteriorating, some improving, and some even achieving complete ACLF resolution. The final grade is reached by days 3-7, and it is this final grade which determines their future outcome trajectory. I therefore propose that ACLF resolution in itself is an important therapeutic target,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Agarwal and coinvestigators from eight centers in six European countries enrolled patients with a history indicative of alcohol-related cirrhosis, at least one acute decompensation event, and progression to ACLF grades 1, 2, or 3a.

Patients with an international normalized ratio above 3 were excluded, as were those with more than three organ failures, uncontrolled infections, patients with primary respiratory organ failure, and those with hemodynamic instability refractory to volume resuscitation and low-dose vasopressors.

A total of 32 patients, of whom 30 were evaluable, were randomized to receive liver dialysis in three to five DIALIVE sessions lasting 8-12 hours each (15 evaluable patients) or to standard of care at participating institutions (15 patients).

The investigators looked at safety of the device (the primary endpoint) in all patients who received at least one DIALIVE treatment (safety population), and a modified safety population of patients who received at least three DIALIVE treatments.

The median patient age in each arm was 49 years, and all patients had alcoholic cirrhosis, with alcoholic hepatitis accounting for at least one decompensation event. In addition, about 25% of patients in each arm had decompensation with infections and/or sepsis as precipitating factors.
 

Safety

Serious adverse events on days 1-10 occurred in 11 of 17 patients in the DIALIVE arm, and in 8 in the standard-of-care arm. In the DIALIVE arm, there were seven treatment-related serious device events, three unexpected serious device events (anemia, septic shock, and hypotension), and one patient discontinued dialysis after having unsafe levels of thrombocytopenia.

Four patients in the DIALIVE arm died on study. The first two died on day 1 one from hypotension, coagulopathy, and multiorgan failure, and this prompted a change in the protocol mandating that DIALIVE be conducted only in an ICU setting with more invasive monitoring and more frequent lab analysis of clotting and other biochemical parameters. Of the two other patients in the DIALIVE arm who on died on study, one died from non-MI cardiac arrest on day 8, and one patient with ACLF grade 3 and a European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure (CLIF)–ACLF score of 68 died from multiorgan failure.

“I must emphasize that even this very sick patient tolerated the device very, very well,” Dr. Agarwal said.

In the standard-of-care arm, two patients died from progressive liver failure on days 17 and 27, respectively, and one died on day 17 from bacterial infections, bleeding, and progressive liver failure.

There were eight instances of filters clotting out of 64 filters used in total, and four episodes of device deficiency, including two instances where tubing could not be disconnected from an Oxiris filter during setup of the DIALIVE circuit, requiring use of new DIALIVE kits; one use of an incorrect dialysis fluid; and one incorrect setup of the DIALIVE circuit.
 

Significant improvements in many scores

In the DIALIVE group, there were significant improvements over baseline at day 10 in both liver scores (P < .05) and brain scores (P < .001). In contrast, in the standard-of-care group there were no improvements in individual organ scores, and respiration scores were significantly worse (P < .01).

DIALIVE was also associated with significant improvements in CLIF-C organ failure scores, compared with standard of care at day 5 and day 10 (P = .021 and .001, respectively); CLIF-C–ACLF scores at days 5 and 10 (P = .045 and .023); and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at day 5 (P = .028).

In the DIALIVE group, ­40% of patients had ACLF resolution by day 5, and 66.7% had resolution by day 10. In the standard-of-care arm, 15% had resolution on day 5, and 33.3% had resolution on day 10. DIALIVE was also associated with a significantly faster median time to resolution, compared with standard of care (10 days vs. not reached; P = .0307). At 28 days, 10 of 15 evaluable patients were alive and had resolution of ACLF with DIALIVE versus 5 of 15 with standard of care (P = .0281).

Dr. Agarwal said that the data justify the implementation of late-phase clinical trials of the liver dialysis device.
 

‘Hopeful’ findings

“It’s very early, but we’re really desperate in finding something to bridge to transplantation,” commented Tobias Boettler, MD, from the University of Freiburg (Germany), who was not involved in the study.

“I think this is very hopeful,” said Dr. Boettler, who moderated the briefing where Dr. Agarwal summarized the study findings.

In the question and answer following the talk in a general session, moderator Philip N. Newsome, MD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England) asked whether patients who were not treated should have been included in the analysis.

Dr. Agarwal replied that “the whole idea behind this study was to understand what this device does to these patients, and how these patients react to this device, so really not looking at the efficacy.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 initiative. Dr. Agarwal received a study grant from the initiative, but had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Boettler and Dr. Newsome had no disclosures relevant to the study.

An investigational liver dialysis device (DIALIVE) was associated with significantly greater survival of patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), compared with the standard of care in a multicenter randomized study.

Among 30 evaluable patients with ACLF from alcoholic cirrhosis randomized to treatment with the DIALIVE system or standard of care, two-thirds of patients assigned to DIALIVE had both survived and experienced resolution of ACLF by 28 days, compared with one-third of patients assigned to standard of care, reported Banwari Agarwal, MBBS, MD from the Royal Free Hospital in London at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
 

Different from MARS

The DIALIVE system differs from the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) liver dialysis system in that DIALIVE removes and replaces albumin, including proinflammatory albumin, rather than filtering and recirculating it, he explained.

“It addresses systemic inflammation, which wasn’t quite the case with MARS,” he said in the question-and-answer portion of his presentation in a general session.

In patients with ACLF, the risk of 28-day mortality increases substantially as the grade of ACLF increases.

“ACLF, however, is potentially reversible, and the initial grade at presentation undergoes changes over time during the natural course of the illness, with some patients deteriorating, some improving, and some even achieving complete ACLF resolution. The final grade is reached by days 3-7, and it is this final grade which determines their future outcome trajectory. I therefore propose that ACLF resolution in itself is an important therapeutic target,” he said.
 

Study details

Dr. Agarwal and coinvestigators from eight centers in six European countries enrolled patients with a history indicative of alcohol-related cirrhosis, at least one acute decompensation event, and progression to ACLF grades 1, 2, or 3a.

Patients with an international normalized ratio above 3 were excluded, as were those with more than three organ failures, uncontrolled infections, patients with primary respiratory organ failure, and those with hemodynamic instability refractory to volume resuscitation and low-dose vasopressors.

A total of 32 patients, of whom 30 were evaluable, were randomized to receive liver dialysis in three to five DIALIVE sessions lasting 8-12 hours each (15 evaluable patients) or to standard of care at participating institutions (15 patients).

The investigators looked at safety of the device (the primary endpoint) in all patients who received at least one DIALIVE treatment (safety population), and a modified safety population of patients who received at least three DIALIVE treatments.

The median patient age in each arm was 49 years, and all patients had alcoholic cirrhosis, with alcoholic hepatitis accounting for at least one decompensation event. In addition, about 25% of patients in each arm had decompensation with infections and/or sepsis as precipitating factors.
 

Safety

Serious adverse events on days 1-10 occurred in 11 of 17 patients in the DIALIVE arm, and in 8 in the standard-of-care arm. In the DIALIVE arm, there were seven treatment-related serious device events, three unexpected serious device events (anemia, septic shock, and hypotension), and one patient discontinued dialysis after having unsafe levels of thrombocytopenia.

Four patients in the DIALIVE arm died on study. The first two died on day 1 one from hypotension, coagulopathy, and multiorgan failure, and this prompted a change in the protocol mandating that DIALIVE be conducted only in an ICU setting with more invasive monitoring and more frequent lab analysis of clotting and other biochemical parameters. Of the two other patients in the DIALIVE arm who on died on study, one died from non-MI cardiac arrest on day 8, and one patient with ACLF grade 3 and a European Foundation for the study of chronic liver failure (CLIF)–ACLF score of 68 died from multiorgan failure.

“I must emphasize that even this very sick patient tolerated the device very, very well,” Dr. Agarwal said.

In the standard-of-care arm, two patients died from progressive liver failure on days 17 and 27, respectively, and one died on day 17 from bacterial infections, bleeding, and progressive liver failure.

There were eight instances of filters clotting out of 64 filters used in total, and four episodes of device deficiency, including two instances where tubing could not be disconnected from an Oxiris filter during setup of the DIALIVE circuit, requiring use of new DIALIVE kits; one use of an incorrect dialysis fluid; and one incorrect setup of the DIALIVE circuit.
 

Significant improvements in many scores

In the DIALIVE group, there were significant improvements over baseline at day 10 in both liver scores (P < .05) and brain scores (P < .001). In contrast, in the standard-of-care group there were no improvements in individual organ scores, and respiration scores were significantly worse (P < .01).

DIALIVE was also associated with significant improvements in CLIF-C organ failure scores, compared with standard of care at day 5 and day 10 (P = .021 and .001, respectively); CLIF-C–ACLF scores at days 5 and 10 (P = .045 and .023); and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at day 5 (P = .028).

In the DIALIVE group, ­40% of patients had ACLF resolution by day 5, and 66.7% had resolution by day 10. In the standard-of-care arm, 15% had resolution on day 5, and 33.3% had resolution on day 10. DIALIVE was also associated with a significantly faster median time to resolution, compared with standard of care (10 days vs. not reached; P = .0307). At 28 days, 10 of 15 evaluable patients were alive and had resolution of ACLF with DIALIVE versus 5 of 15 with standard of care (P = .0281).

Dr. Agarwal said that the data justify the implementation of late-phase clinical trials of the liver dialysis device.
 

‘Hopeful’ findings

“It’s very early, but we’re really desperate in finding something to bridge to transplantation,” commented Tobias Boettler, MD, from the University of Freiburg (Germany), who was not involved in the study.

“I think this is very hopeful,” said Dr. Boettler, who moderated the briefing where Dr. Agarwal summarized the study findings.

In the question and answer following the talk in a general session, moderator Philip N. Newsome, MD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England) asked whether patients who were not treated should have been included in the analysis.

Dr. Agarwal replied that “the whole idea behind this study was to understand what this device does to these patients, and how these patients react to this device, so really not looking at the efficacy.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 initiative. Dr. Agarwal received a study grant from the initiative, but had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Boettler and Dr. Newsome had no disclosures relevant to the study.

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A real-world study of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors found that the incidence rate of cutaneous toxicities was 25%, which is lower than previously reported estimates, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

What’s more, many of the cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) observed in the study may be unreported in clinical trial settings and by providers, according to one of the investigators, Yevgeniy Semenov, MD, MA, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“Most cutaneous irAEs are low grade and might go unreported outside of clinical trial settings, as patients might not seek medical care, or when they do, providers might not report them in patient charts. As a result, the diagnoses identified in this study likely represent the most clinically relevant cutaneous events in the ICI population,” said Dr. Semenov, who presented the results at the meeting.

In the study, he said that one of the first issues he and his colleagues encountered was how to classify cutaneous irAEs, as they “can vary widely in morphology and severity.” Immune-related adverse events from ICIs are a “unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities,” affecting nearly every organ system, and may require treatment with immunosuppressive agents that can impact the effectiveness of the ICI. The matter is further complicated by a “lack of definitional standards of what constitutes a cutaneous immune-related adverse event, which greatly limits the research in this area,” Dr. Semenov said. There is also potential for misdiagnosis of irAEs as cutaneous eruptions occurring in patients receiving ICI therapy because of failure to account for the presence of skin disease at baseline, he pointed out.

Dr. Semenov noted that more than 40 cutaneous eruptions have been associated with ICI treatment. “Much of the observational data on cutaneous immune-related adverse events has been riddled with case reports and case series of cutaneous events that happen to be occurring in the setting of ICI therapy. These lack rigorous control groups and often associate events with little to no relationship to the actual ICI, which may have instead occurred in the setting of a competing medication,” he explained.

Real-world data

The researchers thus sought to identify the real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs with population-level data. Using data from a national claims insurance database from January 2011 through 2019, they compared 8,637 of patients with cancer, treated with an ICI (who had not been treated with other cancer treatments within 6 months of starting an ICI) with 8,637 patients with cancer who were not treated with an ICI, matched for demographics, primary cancer type, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score.

In both groups, the mean age of the patients was 67.5 years, 59.2% were men, and 93% had a severe CCI score. The most common cancer types were lung cancer (40%), melanoma (26.6%), and renal cell carcinoma (12.3%). The median follow-up time was 1.9 years, and the median treatment duration was 2.0 years.

Dr. Semenov and colleagues selected 42 dermatoses reported in the literature to evaluate and found an overall incidence of 25% within 2 years of starting ICI therapy. Of those 42 dermatoses, there were 10 with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, compared with controls: drug eruption or other nonspecific eruption (4.2%; incidence rate ratio, 5.00), bullous pemphigoid (0.3%; IRR, 4.91), maculopapular eruption (0.9%; IRR, 4.75), vitiligo (0.7%; IRR, 3.79), Grover’s disease (0.2%; IRR, 3.43), rash and other nonspecific eruption (9.0%; IRR, 2.34), mucositis (1.5%; IRR, 2.33), pruritus (4.8%; IRR, 1.92), lichen planus (0.5%; IRR, 1.75), and erythroderma (1.1%; IRR, 1.70).

After adjusting for a baseline history of squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, the researchers found that both were significantly less likely in patients receiving ICIs.

A delay in presentation of any cutaneous irAE after starting ICI therapy was also observed (a median of 16.1 weeks), which Dr. Semenov noted was longer than the 5 weeks reported in clinical trials. This delay in presentation increased to a median of 37.5 weeks for the 10 dermatoses with a significantly higher incidence among patients receiving ICIs, with 17.6% of patients presenting in the first month, 63.1% presenting by 6 months, and 84.6% presenting by 1 year.


 

Use of immunosuppressive treatment

The researchers also examined use of systemic immunosuppression for treating cutaneous toxicities, defined as “a new prescription for systemic glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg per day, prednisone equivalent, or nonsteroidal systemic immunosuppression,” administered within 7 days of the diagnosis of the cutaneous event. They found that 5% of patients overall received systemic immunosuppressive treatment within 7 days of a cutaneous event, which was “at the higher end of what was reported in clinical trials for the treatment of cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov noted.

“This is likely the result of the delays in diagnosis in nonclinical trial settings ... allowing more time for these events to progress to a higher grade. Also, there may be a greater willingness by providers to initiate systemic immunosuppression due to less stringent treatment protocols in real-world clinical settings,” he said.

Using a multivariable risk prediction model for cutaneous toxicities, the researchers identified use of ipilimumab, a CTLA-4-blocking antibody, as having a protective effect for not developing a cutaneous irAE, compared with the PD-1 blocker pembrolizumab (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.98; P < .01). But combination ICI therapy (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.25-1.88; P < .001), a melanoma diagnosis (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89; P < .001), and a renal cell carcinoma diagnosis (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00; P < .001) were found to be risk factors for developing cutaneous irAEs.

“The protective effect of ipilimumab identified in the study is interesting, as historically ipilimumab has been more likely to cause cutaneous toxicities,” Dr. Semenov said. “However, we believe that the majority of this association is mediated by the melanoma, for which ipilimumab was primarily used since its introduction. Independent of this relationship, it seems to be less likely to cause cutaneous toxicity than PD-1 inhibition, according to this data.”

Based on their findings, he said, “dermatologists can utilize this information to facilitate evaluations of high-risk patients so they can take steps to prevent progression to more severe toxicities and reduce reliance or systemic immunosuppression.”

The 25% real-world incidence of cutaneous irAEs observed in the study, Dr. Semenov said, is “somewhat lower than previous clinical trial estimates of over one-third of patients presenting with cutaneous toxicities” but he added that previous estimates were based primarily on studies of patients with melanoma.

That some patients delayed presentation with these conditions “should revise clinicians’ understanding of when to expect patients to present with these toxicities, and not to rule out a delayed onset of symptoms as being unrelated to immunotherapy,” Dr. Semenov said.
 

Most cutaneous irAEs are ‘manageable’

In an interview, Naiara Braghiroli, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Baptist Health’s Miami Cancer Institute, Plantation, Fla., who was not an investigator in the study, noted that over the last decade, ICIs have “revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma” and, more recently, the treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers, with regard to survival rates and side effects.

She said that the results of the study show that “most of the cutaneous side effects are manageable with very few exceptions, like the cutaneous bullous disorders and rarely, more serious reactions [such as] Stevens-Johnson syndrome.”

The majority of the side effects are treatable “and when well controlled, the patient can have a good quality of life” during treatment, she added.

For future research, Dr. Braghiroli noted, it would be interesting to know more about whether the development of any specific cutaneous reaction associated with ICIs “is associated with a higher chance of good antitumor response,” as seen with other anticancer therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.

Dr. Semenov and Dr. Braghiroli report having no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.

The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.

Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.

The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .

Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.

He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.

Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”

The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.

Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”

If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”

He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”

The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”

Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.

“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
 

Useful between updates

Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”

New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”

“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”

Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”

In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”

Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”

“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”

Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.

Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”

He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”

Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”

He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”

Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”

Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.

“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.

One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.

“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”

He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”

No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.

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

Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.

The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.

Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.

The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .

Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.

He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.

Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”

The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.

Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”

If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”

He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”

The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”

Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.

“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
 

Useful between updates

Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”

New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”

“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”

Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”

In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”

Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”

“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”

Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.

Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”

He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”

Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”

He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”

Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”

Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.

“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.

One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.

“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”

He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”

No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.

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

Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.

The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.

Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.

The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .

Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.

He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.

Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”

The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.

Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”

If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”

He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”

The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”

Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.

“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
 

Useful between updates

Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”

New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”

“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”

Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”

In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”

Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”

“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”

Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.

Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”

He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”

Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”

He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”

Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”

Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.

“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.

One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.

“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”

He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”

No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.

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

Autoimmune hepatitis that recurs following a liver transplant can impair both graft survival and overall survival, results of a large international study showed.

Among 736 patients with autoimmune hepatitis who underwent liver transplant and were followed for up to 20 years, those who had recurrent AIH had a more than 10-fold higher risk for graft failure and a more than twofold higher risk of death, compared with patients who did not have recurrences, reported Aldo J. Montano-Loza, MD, MSc, PhD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

“Recurrent disease impacts graft and overall survival, highlighting the need for improved management strategies,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

AIH is characterized by the presence of high IgG levels, autoantibodies, and histologic evidence of interface hepatitis. Most patients with AIH respond to immunosuppressive therapy, but some have progression to end-stage liver disease; for these patients, a liver transplant can be lifesaving, with 1-year survival of approximately 90%, and 5-year survival of about 70%, he said.

AIH frequently recurs after transplant, and although previous studies have suggested that recurrent disease does not adversely affect either graft survival or long-term survival, those studies had limited patient numbers and inadequate follow-up, Dr. Montano-Loza said.

He cited two recent studies, one from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and the other from ELTR, the European Liver Transplant Registry, that showed that overall survival after liver transplant was worse for patients with AIH, compared with those who underwent transplant for other autoimmune liver diseases.
 

Multicenter retrospective study

To get a better picture of long-term posttransplant outcomes in patients with AIH, investigators in 33 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia conducted a retrospective cohort study. Their goal was to establish the frequency of recurrent AIH, identify clinical factors and biomarkers for higher risk of recurrence, and evaluate the association between recurrent AIH and both patient and graft survival.

They accomplished this by performing chart reviews, including data on demographics, IgG levels before transplant, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores.

They also collected data on serum liver function tests within the first year after transplant, posttransplant infections, rejection episodes, and immunosuppressive regimens, as well as variables such as donor age and sex, sex mismatch between donor and recipients, calendar year of transplant, and transplant volume for AIH at each center.

Of the 736 patients, 563 (76%) were female. The mean age at AIH diagnosis was 34 years, and the mean age at transplant was 42 years. About one-fifth of patients (21%) had concomitant autoimmune diseases.

Posttransplant immunosuppression regimens included the usual suspects: tacrolimus in 78% of patients, cyclosporine in 11%, prednisone in 76%, mycophenolate mofetil in 55%, and azathioprine in 10%.

In all, 147 of the 736 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent AIH. The investigators found that the cumulative probability of recurrent AIH was 49% after 20 years of follow-up.
 

Risk factors identified

In multivariate analysis controlling for age, concomitant disease, immunosuppressive regimens, organ-sex mismatch, acute rejection, liver function tests, bilirubin, and IgG, factors significantly associated with AIH recurrence included age 42 or younger at the time of transplant (hazard ratio, 3.15; P = .02), use of mycophenolate mofetil after transplant (HR, 3.06; P = .005), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.57; P = .003), and high IgG levels pretransplant (HR, 1.04; P = .004).

Among 529 patients who had a liver biopsy after transplant, factors that remained as significant predictors of AIH recurrence were posttransplant mycophenolate mofetil (HR, 2.75; P = .003), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.03; P = .02), and pretransplant IgG levels (HR, 1.04 per each g/L; P = .001).

An analysis of features associated with graft survival showed that recurrent AIH was associated with significantly increased risk for graft failure (HR, 10.79; P < .001). Patients with high bilirubin levels 1 year after transplantation were also at higher risk for failure (HR, 1.004 per micromol/L; P < .001).

Factors significantly associated with survival were recurrence of AIH (HR for death, 2.53; P = .001), elevated ALT at 12 months after transplant (HR, 1.002; P = .004), and elevated bilirubin at 12 months (HR, 1.003 per micromol/L; P < .001).

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design and by the fact that the diagnosis of recurrent AIH may have differed between centers that performed liver biopsy according to protocol and those that performed them only when clinically indicated, which may have resulted in differences in time to diagnosis.
 

Possible explanations for risk factors

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator moderator Philip N. Newsome, PhD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England), asked: “In terms of age, is that a reflection of worse disease, or is it adherence, or is it a combination, and should we be managing those patients more aggressively with immunosuppression?”

“We consider age is more a reflection of an aggressive disease,” Dr. Montano-Loza said. “Basically, in the univariate analysis we found that patients with a diagnosis at a younger age and even a transplant at a younger age were definitely associated with a higher risk of recurrence, so we think this is more related to an aggressive [disease] behavior in younger patient that translates into worse clinical outcomes.”

He added that patients younger than 40 who require transplants should be closely monitored for recurrence.

“Actually, we could make the argument that maybe these patients will benefit from protocol biopsies,” he said.

He noted that 15% of patients had significant fibrosis at the time of recurrent AIH diagnosis, and that the recurrences were not detected by laboratory monitoring alone.

Asked by an audience member why mycophenolate mofetil was associated with increased risk for recurrence, Dr. Montano-Loza replied that the retrospective nature of the data precludes the possibility of a definitive answer, but he noted that, for patients with other autoimmune liver diseases, the type of immunosuppression used has an impact on recurrence rates.

“For example, cyclosporine has a protective effect for patients transplanted for primary biliary cholangitis,” he said.

He said it may also be possible that there is a rebound effect leading to recurrence when patients are taken off mycophenolate or switched to another agent.

The study was supported by grants to individual researchers. Dr. Montano-Loza and Dr. Newsome reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Autoimmune hepatitis that recurs following a liver transplant can impair both graft survival and overall survival, results of a large international study showed.

Among 736 patients with autoimmune hepatitis who underwent liver transplant and were followed for up to 20 years, those who had recurrent AIH had a more than 10-fold higher risk for graft failure and a more than twofold higher risk of death, compared with patients who did not have recurrences, reported Aldo J. Montano-Loza, MD, MSc, PhD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

“Recurrent disease impacts graft and overall survival, highlighting the need for improved management strategies,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

AIH is characterized by the presence of high IgG levels, autoantibodies, and histologic evidence of interface hepatitis. Most patients with AIH respond to immunosuppressive therapy, but some have progression to end-stage liver disease; for these patients, a liver transplant can be lifesaving, with 1-year survival of approximately 90%, and 5-year survival of about 70%, he said.

AIH frequently recurs after transplant, and although previous studies have suggested that recurrent disease does not adversely affect either graft survival or long-term survival, those studies had limited patient numbers and inadequate follow-up, Dr. Montano-Loza said.

He cited two recent studies, one from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and the other from ELTR, the European Liver Transplant Registry, that showed that overall survival after liver transplant was worse for patients with AIH, compared with those who underwent transplant for other autoimmune liver diseases.
 

Multicenter retrospective study

To get a better picture of long-term posttransplant outcomes in patients with AIH, investigators in 33 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia conducted a retrospective cohort study. Their goal was to establish the frequency of recurrent AIH, identify clinical factors and biomarkers for higher risk of recurrence, and evaluate the association between recurrent AIH and both patient and graft survival.

They accomplished this by performing chart reviews, including data on demographics, IgG levels before transplant, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores.

They also collected data on serum liver function tests within the first year after transplant, posttransplant infections, rejection episodes, and immunosuppressive regimens, as well as variables such as donor age and sex, sex mismatch between donor and recipients, calendar year of transplant, and transplant volume for AIH at each center.

Of the 736 patients, 563 (76%) were female. The mean age at AIH diagnosis was 34 years, and the mean age at transplant was 42 years. About one-fifth of patients (21%) had concomitant autoimmune diseases.

Posttransplant immunosuppression regimens included the usual suspects: tacrolimus in 78% of patients, cyclosporine in 11%, prednisone in 76%, mycophenolate mofetil in 55%, and azathioprine in 10%.

In all, 147 of the 736 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent AIH. The investigators found that the cumulative probability of recurrent AIH was 49% after 20 years of follow-up.
 

Risk factors identified

In multivariate analysis controlling for age, concomitant disease, immunosuppressive regimens, organ-sex mismatch, acute rejection, liver function tests, bilirubin, and IgG, factors significantly associated with AIH recurrence included age 42 or younger at the time of transplant (hazard ratio, 3.15; P = .02), use of mycophenolate mofetil after transplant (HR, 3.06; P = .005), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.57; P = .003), and high IgG levels pretransplant (HR, 1.04; P = .004).

Among 529 patients who had a liver biopsy after transplant, factors that remained as significant predictors of AIH recurrence were posttransplant mycophenolate mofetil (HR, 2.75; P = .003), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.03; P = .02), and pretransplant IgG levels (HR, 1.04 per each g/L; P = .001).

An analysis of features associated with graft survival showed that recurrent AIH was associated with significantly increased risk for graft failure (HR, 10.79; P < .001). Patients with high bilirubin levels 1 year after transplantation were also at higher risk for failure (HR, 1.004 per micromol/L; P < .001).

Factors significantly associated with survival were recurrence of AIH (HR for death, 2.53; P = .001), elevated ALT at 12 months after transplant (HR, 1.002; P = .004), and elevated bilirubin at 12 months (HR, 1.003 per micromol/L; P < .001).

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design and by the fact that the diagnosis of recurrent AIH may have differed between centers that performed liver biopsy according to protocol and those that performed them only when clinically indicated, which may have resulted in differences in time to diagnosis.
 

Possible explanations for risk factors

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator moderator Philip N. Newsome, PhD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England), asked: “In terms of age, is that a reflection of worse disease, or is it adherence, or is it a combination, and should we be managing those patients more aggressively with immunosuppression?”

“We consider age is more a reflection of an aggressive disease,” Dr. Montano-Loza said. “Basically, in the univariate analysis we found that patients with a diagnosis at a younger age and even a transplant at a younger age were definitely associated with a higher risk of recurrence, so we think this is more related to an aggressive [disease] behavior in younger patient that translates into worse clinical outcomes.”

He added that patients younger than 40 who require transplants should be closely monitored for recurrence.

“Actually, we could make the argument that maybe these patients will benefit from protocol biopsies,” he said.

He noted that 15% of patients had significant fibrosis at the time of recurrent AIH diagnosis, and that the recurrences were not detected by laboratory monitoring alone.

Asked by an audience member why mycophenolate mofetil was associated with increased risk for recurrence, Dr. Montano-Loza replied that the retrospective nature of the data precludes the possibility of a definitive answer, but he noted that, for patients with other autoimmune liver diseases, the type of immunosuppression used has an impact on recurrence rates.

“For example, cyclosporine has a protective effect for patients transplanted for primary biliary cholangitis,” he said.

He said it may also be possible that there is a rebound effect leading to recurrence when patients are taken off mycophenolate or switched to another agent.

The study was supported by grants to individual researchers. Dr. Montano-Loza and Dr. Newsome reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Autoimmune hepatitis that recurs following a liver transplant can impair both graft survival and overall survival, results of a large international study showed.

Among 736 patients with autoimmune hepatitis who underwent liver transplant and were followed for up to 20 years, those who had recurrent AIH had a more than 10-fold higher risk for graft failure and a more than twofold higher risk of death, compared with patients who did not have recurrences, reported Aldo J. Montano-Loza, MD, MSc, PhD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

“Recurrent disease impacts graft and overall survival, highlighting the need for improved management strategies,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

AIH is characterized by the presence of high IgG levels, autoantibodies, and histologic evidence of interface hepatitis. Most patients with AIH respond to immunosuppressive therapy, but some have progression to end-stage liver disease; for these patients, a liver transplant can be lifesaving, with 1-year survival of approximately 90%, and 5-year survival of about 70%, he said.

AIH frequently recurs after transplant, and although previous studies have suggested that recurrent disease does not adversely affect either graft survival or long-term survival, those studies had limited patient numbers and inadequate follow-up, Dr. Montano-Loza said.

He cited two recent studies, one from UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and the other from ELTR, the European Liver Transplant Registry, that showed that overall survival after liver transplant was worse for patients with AIH, compared with those who underwent transplant for other autoimmune liver diseases.
 

Multicenter retrospective study

To get a better picture of long-term posttransplant outcomes in patients with AIH, investigators in 33 centers in North and South America, Europe, and Asia conducted a retrospective cohort study. Their goal was to establish the frequency of recurrent AIH, identify clinical factors and biomarkers for higher risk of recurrence, and evaluate the association between recurrent AIH and both patient and graft survival.

They accomplished this by performing chart reviews, including data on demographics, IgG levels before transplant, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores.

They also collected data on serum liver function tests within the first year after transplant, posttransplant infections, rejection episodes, and immunosuppressive regimens, as well as variables such as donor age and sex, sex mismatch between donor and recipients, calendar year of transplant, and transplant volume for AIH at each center.

Of the 736 patients, 563 (76%) were female. The mean age at AIH diagnosis was 34 years, and the mean age at transplant was 42 years. About one-fifth of patients (21%) had concomitant autoimmune diseases.

Posttransplant immunosuppression regimens included the usual suspects: tacrolimus in 78% of patients, cyclosporine in 11%, prednisone in 76%, mycophenolate mofetil in 55%, and azathioprine in 10%.

In all, 147 of the 736 patients had a diagnosis of recurrent AIH. The investigators found that the cumulative probability of recurrent AIH was 49% after 20 years of follow-up.
 

Risk factors identified

In multivariate analysis controlling for age, concomitant disease, immunosuppressive regimens, organ-sex mismatch, acute rejection, liver function tests, bilirubin, and IgG, factors significantly associated with AIH recurrence included age 42 or younger at the time of transplant (hazard ratio, 3.15; P = .02), use of mycophenolate mofetil after transplant (HR, 3.06; P = .005), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.57; P = .003), and high IgG levels pretransplant (HR, 1.04; P = .004).

Among 529 patients who had a liver biopsy after transplant, factors that remained as significant predictors of AIH recurrence were posttransplant mycophenolate mofetil (HR, 2.75; P = .003), donor/recipient sex mismatch (HR, 2.03; P = .02), and pretransplant IgG levels (HR, 1.04 per each g/L; P = .001).

An analysis of features associated with graft survival showed that recurrent AIH was associated with significantly increased risk for graft failure (HR, 10.79; P < .001). Patients with high bilirubin levels 1 year after transplantation were also at higher risk for failure (HR, 1.004 per micromol/L; P < .001).

Factors significantly associated with survival were recurrence of AIH (HR for death, 2.53; P = .001), elevated ALT at 12 months after transplant (HR, 1.002; P = .004), and elevated bilirubin at 12 months (HR, 1.003 per micromol/L; P < .001).

The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the retrospective design and by the fact that the diagnosis of recurrent AIH may have differed between centers that performed liver biopsy according to protocol and those that performed them only when clinically indicated, which may have resulted in differences in time to diagnosis.
 

Possible explanations for risk factors

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, comoderator moderator Philip N. Newsome, PhD, from University Hospitals Birmingham (England), asked: “In terms of age, is that a reflection of worse disease, or is it adherence, or is it a combination, and should we be managing those patients more aggressively with immunosuppression?”

“We consider age is more a reflection of an aggressive disease,” Dr. Montano-Loza said. “Basically, in the univariate analysis we found that patients with a diagnosis at a younger age and even a transplant at a younger age were definitely associated with a higher risk of recurrence, so we think this is more related to an aggressive [disease] behavior in younger patient that translates into worse clinical outcomes.”

He added that patients younger than 40 who require transplants should be closely monitored for recurrence.

“Actually, we could make the argument that maybe these patients will benefit from protocol biopsies,” he said.

He noted that 15% of patients had significant fibrosis at the time of recurrent AIH diagnosis, and that the recurrences were not detected by laboratory monitoring alone.

Asked by an audience member why mycophenolate mofetil was associated with increased risk for recurrence, Dr. Montano-Loza replied that the retrospective nature of the data precludes the possibility of a definitive answer, but he noted that, for patients with other autoimmune liver diseases, the type of immunosuppression used has an impact on recurrence rates.

“For example, cyclosporine has a protective effect for patients transplanted for primary biliary cholangitis,” he said.

He said it may also be possible that there is a rebound effect leading to recurrence when patients are taken off mycophenolate or switched to another agent.

The study was supported by grants to individual researchers. Dr. Montano-Loza and Dr. Newsome reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

If the goal of a clinical encounter is to identify issues that adversely affect health, well-being, and life satisfaction, open-ended questions on sexual problems are essential, according to an expert who provided tips during a session presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists about how to begin a productive dialogue.

For identifying and treating the obstacles to sexual health, “the onus is on the provider,” said Anita H. Clayton, MD, chair of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a poll published more than 20 years ago, 91% of men and 84% of women reported that a satisfying sex life is important, while 90% agreed that sexual difficulties cause emotional problems, said Dr. Clayton, who sees no reason to think that those percentages have changed. Yet, patients are traditionally reluctant to raise their concerns about sexual issues to a physician.

In the same poll, about 50% of the respondents characterized themselves as “very concerned” that a clinician would simply dismiss a sexual complaint or that there would be no treatment. Of the other respondents, 40% were somewhat concerned. Dr. Clayton assumes that those numbers are still valid and that they provide the rationale for asking routinely about sexual health, she said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive.
 

Raising sexual health issues

“The clinician has to initiate the discussion and make it part of the routine examination,” said Dr. Clayton, also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. She indicated that unresolved sexual issues are a common and important but treatable problem, whether the underlying issue has a medical or psychological origin.

Yet, language is critical. Many physicians might have no difficulty discussing sexual problems, but patients often do. Dr. Clayton recommended developing strategies that might it easy if not seamless to elicit information about sexual health in the context of inquiring about other clinical issues.

“Use bridging statements,” Dr. Clayton suggested.

Bridging statements allow an easy transition into a discussion of sexual function from another clinical issue, Dr. Clayton said. As examples, she suggested moving to questions about sex from inquiries about conditions, such as diabetes, or medications, such as antidepressants, that are known to have an impact on sexual dysfunction.

Avoid yes-no questions.

To prompt a dialogue, Dr. Clayton advised against using yes-no questions that allow the patient to quickly dismiss the topic with a negative response. She tries to frame a question that requires a complete thought. In an inquiry addressed to a patient with diabetes, for example, she might first inform the patient that sexual issues are common with this disorder and then ask what types of sexual issues the patient is experiencing.

Once the topic is raised, a checklist approach is appropriate. Patients might be more or less willing to talk any one of the range of issues that influence sexual health, ranging from issues of desire and arousal to discomfort or pain. The door should be opened to a discussion of specific sexual organ function, such as ability to achieve an erection or adequate lubrication.

“Do not assume the patient is heterosexual,” Dr. Clayton cautioned.

It is reasonable and appropriate to bring up sexual health during the intake history. A discussion of sexual health can be initiated by simply posing the question: “Are you sexually active?” Importantly, Dr. Clayton strongly recommended a follow-up question when adults reply that they are not sexually active.

“If a patient is not sexually active, you should ask why,” Dr. Clayton said. The answer might involve a treatable condition.

In the ELIXIR study, which evaluated sexual function in patients with depression, more than twice as many patients reported impairments when asked by the physician than who volunteered this information spontaneously, according to Dr. Clayton, citing a study that found sexual issues in more than 70% of the 4,557 participants.

Prioritize choice of language.

Once sexual impairments are uncovered, clinicians will need to determine how to intervene, but Dr. Clayton recommended using clear and frank language to define the problem even if the language is tailored to the patient’s comfort level. Patients should be encouraged to recognize that there are solutions for most problems, but clinicians should recognize and respect cultural issues in directing patients toward solutions.

Dr. Clayton is not alone in recommending that patients be asked routinely about sexual health. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, chair of family and community medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, has also advocated for a proactive approach.

“Patients deserve whole-patient care that includes sexual health,” said Dr. Savoy, who was coauthor of a recent article that also outlined techniques for eliciting a sexual history.

She suggested that the need to inquire should not be considered age specific.

“Asking patients about their sexual history and concerns is a critical part of routine primary care across the lifespan,” she said.

“We also need to intentionally create a safe environment where it is as normal to talk about sexual questions or concerns as it is about how to care for a cold or manage a backache,” she added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same company. Dr. Clayton disclosed financial relationships with Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AMAG, Astellas, Fabre-Kramer, Janssen, Ovoca Bio, PureTech Health, Relmada, S1 Biopharma, Safe Therapeutics, Takeda, and WCG MedAd-vante-Prophase. Dr. Savoy reported no conflicts of interest.

If the goal of a clinical encounter is to identify issues that adversely affect health, well-being, and life satisfaction, open-ended questions on sexual problems are essential, according to an expert who provided tips during a session presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists about how to begin a productive dialogue.

For identifying and treating the obstacles to sexual health, “the onus is on the provider,” said Anita H. Clayton, MD, chair of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a poll published more than 20 years ago, 91% of men and 84% of women reported that a satisfying sex life is important, while 90% agreed that sexual difficulties cause emotional problems, said Dr. Clayton, who sees no reason to think that those percentages have changed. Yet, patients are traditionally reluctant to raise their concerns about sexual issues to a physician.

In the same poll, about 50% of the respondents characterized themselves as “very concerned” that a clinician would simply dismiss a sexual complaint or that there would be no treatment. Of the other respondents, 40% were somewhat concerned. Dr. Clayton assumes that those numbers are still valid and that they provide the rationale for asking routinely about sexual health, she said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive.
 

Raising sexual health issues

“The clinician has to initiate the discussion and make it part of the routine examination,” said Dr. Clayton, also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. She indicated that unresolved sexual issues are a common and important but treatable problem, whether the underlying issue has a medical or psychological origin.

Yet, language is critical. Many physicians might have no difficulty discussing sexual problems, but patients often do. Dr. Clayton recommended developing strategies that might it easy if not seamless to elicit information about sexual health in the context of inquiring about other clinical issues.

“Use bridging statements,” Dr. Clayton suggested.

Bridging statements allow an easy transition into a discussion of sexual function from another clinical issue, Dr. Clayton said. As examples, she suggested moving to questions about sex from inquiries about conditions, such as diabetes, or medications, such as antidepressants, that are known to have an impact on sexual dysfunction.

Avoid yes-no questions.

To prompt a dialogue, Dr. Clayton advised against using yes-no questions that allow the patient to quickly dismiss the topic with a negative response. She tries to frame a question that requires a complete thought. In an inquiry addressed to a patient with diabetes, for example, she might first inform the patient that sexual issues are common with this disorder and then ask what types of sexual issues the patient is experiencing.

Once the topic is raised, a checklist approach is appropriate. Patients might be more or less willing to talk any one of the range of issues that influence sexual health, ranging from issues of desire and arousal to discomfort or pain. The door should be opened to a discussion of specific sexual organ function, such as ability to achieve an erection or adequate lubrication.

“Do not assume the patient is heterosexual,” Dr. Clayton cautioned.

It is reasonable and appropriate to bring up sexual health during the intake history. A discussion of sexual health can be initiated by simply posing the question: “Are you sexually active?” Importantly, Dr. Clayton strongly recommended a follow-up question when adults reply that they are not sexually active.

“If a patient is not sexually active, you should ask why,” Dr. Clayton said. The answer might involve a treatable condition.

In the ELIXIR study, which evaluated sexual function in patients with depression, more than twice as many patients reported impairments when asked by the physician than who volunteered this information spontaneously, according to Dr. Clayton, citing a study that found sexual issues in more than 70% of the 4,557 participants.

Prioritize choice of language.

Once sexual impairments are uncovered, clinicians will need to determine how to intervene, but Dr. Clayton recommended using clear and frank language to define the problem even if the language is tailored to the patient’s comfort level. Patients should be encouraged to recognize that there are solutions for most problems, but clinicians should recognize and respect cultural issues in directing patients toward solutions.

Dr. Clayton is not alone in recommending that patients be asked routinely about sexual health. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, chair of family and community medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, has also advocated for a proactive approach.

“Patients deserve whole-patient care that includes sexual health,” said Dr. Savoy, who was coauthor of a recent article that also outlined techniques for eliciting a sexual history.

She suggested that the need to inquire should not be considered age specific.

“Asking patients about their sexual history and concerns is a critical part of routine primary care across the lifespan,” she said.

“We also need to intentionally create a safe environment where it is as normal to talk about sexual questions or concerns as it is about how to care for a cold or manage a backache,” she added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same company. Dr. Clayton disclosed financial relationships with Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AMAG, Astellas, Fabre-Kramer, Janssen, Ovoca Bio, PureTech Health, Relmada, S1 Biopharma, Safe Therapeutics, Takeda, and WCG MedAd-vante-Prophase. Dr. Savoy reported no conflicts of interest.

If the goal of a clinical encounter is to identify issues that adversely affect health, well-being, and life satisfaction, open-ended questions on sexual problems are essential, according to an expert who provided tips during a session presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists about how to begin a productive dialogue.

For identifying and treating the obstacles to sexual health, “the onus is on the provider,” said Anita H. Clayton, MD, chair of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a poll published more than 20 years ago, 91% of men and 84% of women reported that a satisfying sex life is important, while 90% agreed that sexual difficulties cause emotional problems, said Dr. Clayton, who sees no reason to think that those percentages have changed. Yet, patients are traditionally reluctant to raise their concerns about sexual issues to a physician.

In the same poll, about 50% of the respondents characterized themselves as “very concerned” that a clinician would simply dismiss a sexual complaint or that there would be no treatment. Of the other respondents, 40% were somewhat concerned. Dr. Clayton assumes that those numbers are still valid and that they provide the rationale for asking routinely about sexual health, she said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive.
 

Raising sexual health issues

“The clinician has to initiate the discussion and make it part of the routine examination,” said Dr. Clayton, also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the university. She indicated that unresolved sexual issues are a common and important but treatable problem, whether the underlying issue has a medical or psychological origin.

Yet, language is critical. Many physicians might have no difficulty discussing sexual problems, but patients often do. Dr. Clayton recommended developing strategies that might it easy if not seamless to elicit information about sexual health in the context of inquiring about other clinical issues.

“Use bridging statements,” Dr. Clayton suggested.

Bridging statements allow an easy transition into a discussion of sexual function from another clinical issue, Dr. Clayton said. As examples, she suggested moving to questions about sex from inquiries about conditions, such as diabetes, or medications, such as antidepressants, that are known to have an impact on sexual dysfunction.

Avoid yes-no questions.

To prompt a dialogue, Dr. Clayton advised against using yes-no questions that allow the patient to quickly dismiss the topic with a negative response. She tries to frame a question that requires a complete thought. In an inquiry addressed to a patient with diabetes, for example, she might first inform the patient that sexual issues are common with this disorder and then ask what types of sexual issues the patient is experiencing.

Once the topic is raised, a checklist approach is appropriate. Patients might be more or less willing to talk any one of the range of issues that influence sexual health, ranging from issues of desire and arousal to discomfort or pain. The door should be opened to a discussion of specific sexual organ function, such as ability to achieve an erection or adequate lubrication.

“Do not assume the patient is heterosexual,” Dr. Clayton cautioned.

It is reasonable and appropriate to bring up sexual health during the intake history. A discussion of sexual health can be initiated by simply posing the question: “Are you sexually active?” Importantly, Dr. Clayton strongly recommended a follow-up question when adults reply that they are not sexually active.

“If a patient is not sexually active, you should ask why,” Dr. Clayton said. The answer might involve a treatable condition.

In the ELIXIR study, which evaluated sexual function in patients with depression, more than twice as many patients reported impairments when asked by the physician than who volunteered this information spontaneously, according to Dr. Clayton, citing a study that found sexual issues in more than 70% of the 4,557 participants.

Prioritize choice of language.

Once sexual impairments are uncovered, clinicians will need to determine how to intervene, but Dr. Clayton recommended using clear and frank language to define the problem even if the language is tailored to the patient’s comfort level. Patients should be encouraged to recognize that there are solutions for most problems, but clinicians should recognize and respect cultural issues in directing patients toward solutions.

Dr. Clayton is not alone in recommending that patients be asked routinely about sexual health. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, chair of family and community medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, has also advocated for a proactive approach.

“Patients deserve whole-patient care that includes sexual health,” said Dr. Savoy, who was coauthor of a recent article that also outlined techniques for eliciting a sexual history.

She suggested that the need to inquire should not be considered age specific.

“Asking patients about their sexual history and concerns is a critical part of routine primary care across the lifespan,” she said.

“We also need to intentionally create a safe environment where it is as normal to talk about sexual questions or concerns as it is about how to care for a cold or manage a backache,” she added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same company. Dr. Clayton disclosed financial relationships with Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AMAG, Astellas, Fabre-Kramer, Janssen, Ovoca Bio, PureTech Health, Relmada, S1 Biopharma, Safe Therapeutics, Takeda, and WCG MedAd-vante-Prophase. Dr. Savoy reported no conflicts of interest.

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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