Heartburn/Acid Reflux

Clinicians generally shouldn’t use potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) as first-line therapy for acid-related conditions, nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or peptic ulcer disease, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.

“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

 

“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”

The update was published in Gastroenterology .

 

P-CAB Developments

For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.

Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.

In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.

Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.

In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote. 

For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.

For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.

For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.

For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.

“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
 
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians generally shouldn’t use potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) as first-line therapy for acid-related conditions, nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or peptic ulcer disease, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.

“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

 

“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”

The update was published in Gastroenterology .

 

P-CAB Developments

For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.

Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.

In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.

Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.

In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote. 

For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.

For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.

For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.

For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.

“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
 
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians generally shouldn’t use potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) as first-line therapy for acid-related conditions, nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or peptic ulcer disease, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.

“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

 

“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”

The update was published in Gastroenterology .

 

P-CAB Developments

For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.

Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.

In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.

Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.

In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote. 

For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.

For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.

For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.

For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.

“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
 
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), both those who are responsive to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and those who are unresponsive to PPI treatment share similar esophageal protein profiles, which are distinct from those without EoE, according to comparative proteomic analyses.

Notably, after PPI therapy, the protein profiles of responsive patients reverted and appeared similar to non-EoE patients, whereas the profiles of nonresponsive patients remained largely unchanged.

“Identifying protein biomarkers associated with PPI response may help distinguish EoE phenotypes and guide therapy selections,” said senior author Walter Chan, MD, AGAF, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy at Harvard Medical School and director of the center for gastrointestinal motility at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“These findings may provide the framework for developing protein biomarkers to assess response to therapy and monitor disease activity,” he added.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

 

Comparative Proteomic Analyses

Chan and colleagues conducted a prospective exploratory pilot study to identify the differences in esophageal protein profiles among PPI-responsive-EoE (PPI-R-EoE), PPI-nonresponsive-EoE (PPI-NR-EoE), and non-EoE controls using SOMAscan, a proteomics platform that allows simultaneous detection of 1305 human proteins.

The research team prospectively enrolled patients undergoing endoscopy for esophageal symptoms or for EoE follow-up, obtaining clinically indicated biopsies as well as extra samples from the midesophagus.

Patients who were diagnosed with EoE (at 15 or greater eosinophils per high-power field, or eos/hpf) were treated with 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily for 8 weeks, followed by repeat biopsies to assess treatment response.

Patients with histologic remission (fewer than 15 eos/hpf) were classified as PPI-R-EoE, whereas those with persistently active disease were classified as PPI-NR-EoE. Patients without EoE served as controls and were categorized as having erosive esophagitis (EE) or no esophagitis.

Overall, the study enrolled 32 patients, including 15 with PPI-R-EoE, eight with PPI-NR-EoE, three with EE, and six with no esophagitis. The demographics, symptoms, and endoscopic findings were similar between the PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE patients.

At the index endoscopy, the PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE patients had similar esophageal protein profiles, with only 20 proteins differentially expressed at a relaxed cutoff of P < .1. An analysis of the 20 proteins predicted lower expression of six proteins that may be associated with gastrointestinal inflammation in nonresponsive patients, including STAT1, STAT3, CFB, interleukin (IL)-17RA, TNFRSF1A, and SERPINA3.

In addition, 136 proteins — including 15 with corrected P < .05 — clearly discriminated PPI-R-EoE patients from non-EoE controls, and 255 proteins — including 249 with P < .05 — discriminated PPI-NR-EoE patients from controls. Both types of EoE patients had proteins associated with enhanced inflammation and vasculogenesis, as well as down-regulation of CRISP3 and DSG1 and upregulation of TNFAIP6.

The comparative analyses also showed that the follow-up biopsies of PPI-R-EoE patients had protein profiles that resembled non-EoE controls after PPI therapy.

“This further supports the hypothesis that despite the PPI response, PPI-R-EoE represents a subtype of EoE rather than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),” Chan said.

 

Future EoE Considerations

Although most expressed proteins appeared similar between PPI-responsive and nonresponsive patients before treatment, a few proteins differed related to gastrointestinal inflammation, the study authors wrote, including some previously implicated in IL4 and IL13 inflammatory pathways.

“Further study of these proteins may provide insights into the EoE pathogenic pathway, explore their potential to predict PPI response at diagnosis, and identify possible therapeutic targets,” they wrote.

The authors pointed to the small study size as the primary limitation, noting that the pilot study was intended to explore the feasibility of using SomaScan to assess esophageal protein profiles in different EoE phenotypes. In the future, larger studies with more expansive candidate proteins could help characterize the differences and better identify specific proteins and pathways in EoE, they wrote.

“The takeaway is that PPI responsiveness does not distinguish EoE from GERD but rather PPI is a primary therapy for EoE independent of GERD,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, director of allergy and immunology and director of the Cincinnati Center for Eosinophilic Disorders at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Rothenberg, who wasn’t involved with this study, has conducted transcriptome analyses of PPI-R-EoE, which showed PPI-reversible allergic inflammation.

“PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE look the same at the molecular level,” he said. “After therapy, PPI-R-EoE normalizes, as per its definition.”

This study was supported by the Campaign Urging Research for Eosinophilic Disease Foundation Grant, the Kenneth and Louise Goldberg Junior Faculty Award, and a National Institutes of Health award. Chan declared advisory board positions with several pharmaceutical companies and Rothenberg reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), both those who are responsive to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and those who are unresponsive to PPI treatment share similar esophageal protein profiles, which are distinct from those without EoE, according to comparative proteomic analyses.

Notably, after PPI therapy, the protein profiles of responsive patients reverted and appeared similar to non-EoE patients, whereas the profiles of nonresponsive patients remained largely unchanged.

“Identifying protein biomarkers associated with PPI response may help distinguish EoE phenotypes and guide therapy selections,” said senior author Walter Chan, MD, AGAF, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy at Harvard Medical School and director of the center for gastrointestinal motility at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“These findings may provide the framework for developing protein biomarkers to assess response to therapy and monitor disease activity,” he added.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

 

Comparative Proteomic Analyses

Chan and colleagues conducted a prospective exploratory pilot study to identify the differences in esophageal protein profiles among PPI-responsive-EoE (PPI-R-EoE), PPI-nonresponsive-EoE (PPI-NR-EoE), and non-EoE controls using SOMAscan, a proteomics platform that allows simultaneous detection of 1305 human proteins.

The research team prospectively enrolled patients undergoing endoscopy for esophageal symptoms or for EoE follow-up, obtaining clinically indicated biopsies as well as extra samples from the midesophagus.

Patients who were diagnosed with EoE (at 15 or greater eosinophils per high-power field, or eos/hpf) were treated with 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily for 8 weeks, followed by repeat biopsies to assess treatment response.

Patients with histologic remission (fewer than 15 eos/hpf) were classified as PPI-R-EoE, whereas those with persistently active disease were classified as PPI-NR-EoE. Patients without EoE served as controls and were categorized as having erosive esophagitis (EE) or no esophagitis.

Overall, the study enrolled 32 patients, including 15 with PPI-R-EoE, eight with PPI-NR-EoE, three with EE, and six with no esophagitis. The demographics, symptoms, and endoscopic findings were similar between the PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE patients.

At the index endoscopy, the PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE patients had similar esophageal protein profiles, with only 20 proteins differentially expressed at a relaxed cutoff of P < .1. An analysis of the 20 proteins predicted lower expression of six proteins that may be associated with gastrointestinal inflammation in nonresponsive patients, including STAT1, STAT3, CFB, interleukin (IL)-17RA, TNFRSF1A, and SERPINA3.

In addition, 136 proteins — including 15 with corrected P < .05 — clearly discriminated PPI-R-EoE patients from non-EoE controls, and 255 proteins — including 249 with P < .05 — discriminated PPI-NR-EoE patients from controls. Both types of EoE patients had proteins associated with enhanced inflammation and vasculogenesis, as well as down-regulation of CRISP3 and DSG1 and upregulation of TNFAIP6.

The comparative analyses also showed that the follow-up biopsies of PPI-R-EoE patients had protein profiles that resembled non-EoE controls after PPI therapy.

“This further supports the hypothesis that despite the PPI response, PPI-R-EoE represents a subtype of EoE rather than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),” Chan said.

 

Future EoE Considerations

Although most expressed proteins appeared similar between PPI-responsive and nonresponsive patients before treatment, a few proteins differed related to gastrointestinal inflammation, the study authors wrote, including some previously implicated in IL4 and IL13 inflammatory pathways.

“Further study of these proteins may provide insights into the EoE pathogenic pathway, explore their potential to predict PPI response at diagnosis, and identify possible therapeutic targets,” they wrote.

The authors pointed to the small study size as the primary limitation, noting that the pilot study was intended to explore the feasibility of using SomaScan to assess esophageal protein profiles in different EoE phenotypes. In the future, larger studies with more expansive candidate proteins could help characterize the differences and better identify specific proteins and pathways in EoE, they wrote.

“The takeaway is that PPI responsiveness does not distinguish EoE from GERD but rather PPI is a primary therapy for EoE independent of GERD,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, director of allergy and immunology and director of the Cincinnati Center for Eosinophilic Disorders at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Rothenberg, who wasn’t involved with this study, has conducted transcriptome analyses of PPI-R-EoE, which showed PPI-reversible allergic inflammation.

“PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE look the same at the molecular level,” he said. “After therapy, PPI-R-EoE normalizes, as per its definition.”

This study was supported by the Campaign Urging Research for Eosinophilic Disease Foundation Grant, the Kenneth and Louise Goldberg Junior Faculty Award, and a National Institutes of Health award. Chan declared advisory board positions with several pharmaceutical companies and Rothenberg reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), both those who are responsive to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and those who are unresponsive to PPI treatment share similar esophageal protein profiles, which are distinct from those without EoE, according to comparative proteomic analyses.

Notably, after PPI therapy, the protein profiles of responsive patients reverted and appeared similar to non-EoE patients, whereas the profiles of nonresponsive patients remained largely unchanged.

“Identifying protein biomarkers associated with PPI response may help distinguish EoE phenotypes and guide therapy selections,” said senior author Walter Chan, MD, AGAF, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy at Harvard Medical School and director of the center for gastrointestinal motility at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“These findings may provide the framework for developing protein biomarkers to assess response to therapy and monitor disease activity,” he added.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.

 

Comparative Proteomic Analyses

Chan and colleagues conducted a prospective exploratory pilot study to identify the differences in esophageal protein profiles among PPI-responsive-EoE (PPI-R-EoE), PPI-nonresponsive-EoE (PPI-NR-EoE), and non-EoE controls using SOMAscan, a proteomics platform that allows simultaneous detection of 1305 human proteins.

The research team prospectively enrolled patients undergoing endoscopy for esophageal symptoms or for EoE follow-up, obtaining clinically indicated biopsies as well as extra samples from the midesophagus.

Patients who were diagnosed with EoE (at 15 or greater eosinophils per high-power field, or eos/hpf) were treated with 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily for 8 weeks, followed by repeat biopsies to assess treatment response.

Patients with histologic remission (fewer than 15 eos/hpf) were classified as PPI-R-EoE, whereas those with persistently active disease were classified as PPI-NR-EoE. Patients without EoE served as controls and were categorized as having erosive esophagitis (EE) or no esophagitis.

Overall, the study enrolled 32 patients, including 15 with PPI-R-EoE, eight with PPI-NR-EoE, three with EE, and six with no esophagitis. The demographics, symptoms, and endoscopic findings were similar between the PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE patients.

At the index endoscopy, the PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE patients had similar esophageal protein profiles, with only 20 proteins differentially expressed at a relaxed cutoff of P < .1. An analysis of the 20 proteins predicted lower expression of six proteins that may be associated with gastrointestinal inflammation in nonresponsive patients, including STAT1, STAT3, CFB, interleukin (IL)-17RA, TNFRSF1A, and SERPINA3.

In addition, 136 proteins — including 15 with corrected P < .05 — clearly discriminated PPI-R-EoE patients from non-EoE controls, and 255 proteins — including 249 with P < .05 — discriminated PPI-NR-EoE patients from controls. Both types of EoE patients had proteins associated with enhanced inflammation and vasculogenesis, as well as down-regulation of CRISP3 and DSG1 and upregulation of TNFAIP6.

The comparative analyses also showed that the follow-up biopsies of PPI-R-EoE patients had protein profiles that resembled non-EoE controls after PPI therapy.

“This further supports the hypothesis that despite the PPI response, PPI-R-EoE represents a subtype of EoE rather than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),” Chan said.

 

Future EoE Considerations

Although most expressed proteins appeared similar between PPI-responsive and nonresponsive patients before treatment, a few proteins differed related to gastrointestinal inflammation, the study authors wrote, including some previously implicated in IL4 and IL13 inflammatory pathways.

“Further study of these proteins may provide insights into the EoE pathogenic pathway, explore their potential to predict PPI response at diagnosis, and identify possible therapeutic targets,” they wrote.

The authors pointed to the small study size as the primary limitation, noting that the pilot study was intended to explore the feasibility of using SomaScan to assess esophageal protein profiles in different EoE phenotypes. In the future, larger studies with more expansive candidate proteins could help characterize the differences and better identify specific proteins and pathways in EoE, they wrote.

“The takeaway is that PPI responsiveness does not distinguish EoE from GERD but rather PPI is a primary therapy for EoE independent of GERD,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, director of allergy and immunology and director of the Cincinnati Center for Eosinophilic Disorders at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Rothenberg, who wasn’t involved with this study, has conducted transcriptome analyses of PPI-R-EoE, which showed PPI-reversible allergic inflammation.

“PPI-R-EoE and PPI-NR-EoE look the same at the molecular level,” he said. “After therapy, PPI-R-EoE normalizes, as per its definition.”

This study was supported by the Campaign Urging Research for Eosinophilic Disease Foundation Grant, the Kenneth and Louise Goldberg Junior Faculty Award, and a National Institutes of Health award. Chan declared advisory board positions with several pharmaceutical companies and Rothenberg reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA — A new 10-day treatment regimen with the oral potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan, and the antibiotics levofloxacin and amoxicillin, was significantly more effective at eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection than triple therapy with omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin, according to the results of a randomized, multicenter study.

In addition, the triple therapy regimen with vonoprazan was generally better tolerated than the 14-day omeprazole-based regimen.

The new treatment combination was created to tackle the two main reasons that patients with H pylori experience treatment failure: Inadequate acid suppressant activity and antibiotic resistance, said principal investigator Kachonsak Yongwatana, MD, from Phramongkutklao Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand.

“Vonoprazan” is the more potent option for acid suppression, and “levofloxacin” addresses antibiotic resistance, he explained.

Yongwatana presented the findings (Abstract 41) at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. The ACG recently released a clinical guideline on the treatment of H pylori infection. 
 

Robust Eradication Rates

Yongwatana and colleagues enrolled adult patients with H pylori infections at four hospitals in Thailand between December 2022 and September 2023. The presence of H pylori was confirmed by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with positive rapid urease test or positive test on tissue biopsy. 

Patients were then randomized into two treatment groups: The 10-day VAL group (vonoprazan 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily, and levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 10 days) and the 14-day OAC group (omeprazole 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 14 days). Eradication was assessed by urea breath test 4 weeks after completion of treatment.

There were 280 patients in total, with 140 in each group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The most common endoscopic findings among all participants included erosive gastritis (38%), nonerosive gastritis (27%), and gastric ulcer (17%). 

In comparing the treatments, the researchers found that 10-day VAL led to significantly greater H pylori eradication rate than the 14-day OAC group in both intention-to-treat analysis (91.4 % vs 80.7%, P = .009) and per-protocol analysis (93.4% vs 83.7%, P = .012). 

Vonoprazan-based therapy was also well tolerated by participants. Patients in the 10-day VAL group had significantly lower rates of experiencing a bitter taste (2.1% vs 42.9%, P < .001) and bloating (5% vs 12.1%, P = .033) than those in the 14-day OAC group. 
 

Isolating the BMI Effect

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis on potential factors influencing response, which revealed that having a body mass index (BMI) < 23.5 was significantly associated with a higher chance at successful H pylori eradication (relative risk [RR], 2.27; P = .049). 

They then analyzed whether this BMI threshold was predictive in the separate treatment regimens. Although having a BMI < 23.5 was significantly associated with a higher eradication rate in the 14-day OAC group (RR, 3.34; P = .026), no such effect was noted in the 10-day VAL group (RR, 1.10; P = .888).

The influence of BMI could be caused by the bioavailability of the treatments used in the regimen, Younwatana said in an interview. He and his colleagues recommended against using the 14-day OAC regimen in those with BMI ≥ 23.5.

“In patients with a high BMI, we should be concerned that normal proton pump inhibitors may not work,” he said. “You have to step up to the higher-potency options.” 
 

Seeking Confirmation in Other Populations

Session comoderator Felice Schnoll-Sussman, MD, MSc, professor of clinical medicine and the director of the Jay Monahan Center for Gastrointestinal Health, director of the DIGEST program, and the associate chair of medicine for Outreach and Network at New York–Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in New York City, said in an interview that the promising results merit confirmation in other populations. 

“When you see a study that is coming out of one country, when there could be issues related to antibiotic sensitivity in H pylori, it really is important to decide whether or not this is applicable to other patient populations,” said Schnoll-Sussman, who was not involved in the study. 

She noted that this is also true of the findings from the subgroup as it is unclear whether average rates of BMI are notably lower in Thailand from other countries.

“As we know, BMI affects so many things with disease states. So, it’s a possibility in a country where the BMI is actually lower, there may be something else about these individuals in terms of their wellness status that could be underlying the effect.” 

The study had no specific funding, although Takeda supplied treatments used in the analysis. Yongwatana reported no relevant financial relationships. Schnoll-Sussman reported serving as an advisory committee/board member for Braintree, Ethicon, Implantica, and Phathom. 

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

PHILADELPHIA — A new 10-day treatment regimen with the oral potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan, and the antibiotics levofloxacin and amoxicillin, was significantly more effective at eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection than triple therapy with omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin, according to the results of a randomized, multicenter study.

In addition, the triple therapy regimen with vonoprazan was generally better tolerated than the 14-day omeprazole-based regimen.

The new treatment combination was created to tackle the two main reasons that patients with H pylori experience treatment failure: Inadequate acid suppressant activity and antibiotic resistance, said principal investigator Kachonsak Yongwatana, MD, from Phramongkutklao Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand.

“Vonoprazan” is the more potent option for acid suppression, and “levofloxacin” addresses antibiotic resistance, he explained.

Yongwatana presented the findings (Abstract 41) at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. The ACG recently released a clinical guideline on the treatment of H pylori infection. 
 

Robust Eradication Rates

Yongwatana and colleagues enrolled adult patients with H pylori infections at four hospitals in Thailand between December 2022 and September 2023. The presence of H pylori was confirmed by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with positive rapid urease test or positive test on tissue biopsy. 

Patients were then randomized into two treatment groups: The 10-day VAL group (vonoprazan 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily, and levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 10 days) and the 14-day OAC group (omeprazole 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 14 days). Eradication was assessed by urea breath test 4 weeks after completion of treatment.

There were 280 patients in total, with 140 in each group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The most common endoscopic findings among all participants included erosive gastritis (38%), nonerosive gastritis (27%), and gastric ulcer (17%). 

In comparing the treatments, the researchers found that 10-day VAL led to significantly greater H pylori eradication rate than the 14-day OAC group in both intention-to-treat analysis (91.4 % vs 80.7%, P = .009) and per-protocol analysis (93.4% vs 83.7%, P = .012). 

Vonoprazan-based therapy was also well tolerated by participants. Patients in the 10-day VAL group had significantly lower rates of experiencing a bitter taste (2.1% vs 42.9%, P < .001) and bloating (5% vs 12.1%, P = .033) than those in the 14-day OAC group. 
 

Isolating the BMI Effect

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis on potential factors influencing response, which revealed that having a body mass index (BMI) < 23.5 was significantly associated with a higher chance at successful H pylori eradication (relative risk [RR], 2.27; P = .049). 

They then analyzed whether this BMI threshold was predictive in the separate treatment regimens. Although having a BMI < 23.5 was significantly associated with a higher eradication rate in the 14-day OAC group (RR, 3.34; P = .026), no such effect was noted in the 10-day VAL group (RR, 1.10; P = .888).

The influence of BMI could be caused by the bioavailability of the treatments used in the regimen, Younwatana said in an interview. He and his colleagues recommended against using the 14-day OAC regimen in those with BMI ≥ 23.5.

“In patients with a high BMI, we should be concerned that normal proton pump inhibitors may not work,” he said. “You have to step up to the higher-potency options.” 
 

Seeking Confirmation in Other Populations

Session comoderator Felice Schnoll-Sussman, MD, MSc, professor of clinical medicine and the director of the Jay Monahan Center for Gastrointestinal Health, director of the DIGEST program, and the associate chair of medicine for Outreach and Network at New York–Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in New York City, said in an interview that the promising results merit confirmation in other populations. 

“When you see a study that is coming out of one country, when there could be issues related to antibiotic sensitivity in H pylori, it really is important to decide whether or not this is applicable to other patient populations,” said Schnoll-Sussman, who was not involved in the study. 

She noted that this is also true of the findings from the subgroup as it is unclear whether average rates of BMI are notably lower in Thailand from other countries.

“As we know, BMI affects so many things with disease states. So, it’s a possibility in a country where the BMI is actually lower, there may be something else about these individuals in terms of their wellness status that could be underlying the effect.” 

The study had no specific funding, although Takeda supplied treatments used in the analysis. Yongwatana reported no relevant financial relationships. Schnoll-Sussman reported serving as an advisory committee/board member for Braintree, Ethicon, Implantica, and Phathom. 

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

PHILADELPHIA — A new 10-day treatment regimen with the oral potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan, and the antibiotics levofloxacin and amoxicillin, was significantly more effective at eradicating Helicobacter pylori infection than triple therapy with omeprazole, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin, according to the results of a randomized, multicenter study.

In addition, the triple therapy regimen with vonoprazan was generally better tolerated than the 14-day omeprazole-based regimen.

The new treatment combination was created to tackle the two main reasons that patients with H pylori experience treatment failure: Inadequate acid suppressant activity and antibiotic resistance, said principal investigator Kachonsak Yongwatana, MD, from Phramongkutklao Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand.

“Vonoprazan” is the more potent option for acid suppression, and “levofloxacin” addresses antibiotic resistance, he explained.

Yongwatana presented the findings (Abstract 41) at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. The ACG recently released a clinical guideline on the treatment of H pylori infection. 
 

Robust Eradication Rates

Yongwatana and colleagues enrolled adult patients with H pylori infections at four hospitals in Thailand between December 2022 and September 2023. The presence of H pylori was confirmed by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with positive rapid urease test or positive test on tissue biopsy. 

Patients were then randomized into two treatment groups: The 10-day VAL group (vonoprazan 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily, and levofloxacin 500 mg once daily for 10 days) and the 14-day OAC group (omeprazole 20 mg twice daily, amoxicillin 1000 mg twice daily, and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for 14 days). Eradication was assessed by urea breath test 4 weeks after completion of treatment.

There were 280 patients in total, with 140 in each group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The most common endoscopic findings among all participants included erosive gastritis (38%), nonerosive gastritis (27%), and gastric ulcer (17%). 

In comparing the treatments, the researchers found that 10-day VAL led to significantly greater H pylori eradication rate than the 14-day OAC group in both intention-to-treat analysis (91.4 % vs 80.7%, P = .009) and per-protocol analysis (93.4% vs 83.7%, P = .012). 

Vonoprazan-based therapy was also well tolerated by participants. Patients in the 10-day VAL group had significantly lower rates of experiencing a bitter taste (2.1% vs 42.9%, P < .001) and bloating (5% vs 12.1%, P = .033) than those in the 14-day OAC group. 
 

Isolating the BMI Effect

The researchers conducted a subgroup analysis on potential factors influencing response, which revealed that having a body mass index (BMI) < 23.5 was significantly associated with a higher chance at successful H pylori eradication (relative risk [RR], 2.27; P = .049). 

They then analyzed whether this BMI threshold was predictive in the separate treatment regimens. Although having a BMI < 23.5 was significantly associated with a higher eradication rate in the 14-day OAC group (RR, 3.34; P = .026), no such effect was noted in the 10-day VAL group (RR, 1.10; P = .888).

The influence of BMI could be caused by the bioavailability of the treatments used in the regimen, Younwatana said in an interview. He and his colleagues recommended against using the 14-day OAC regimen in those with BMI ≥ 23.5.

“In patients with a high BMI, we should be concerned that normal proton pump inhibitors may not work,” he said. “You have to step up to the higher-potency options.” 
 

Seeking Confirmation in Other Populations

Session comoderator Felice Schnoll-Sussman, MD, MSc, professor of clinical medicine and the director of the Jay Monahan Center for Gastrointestinal Health, director of the DIGEST program, and the associate chair of medicine for Outreach and Network at New York–Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in New York City, said in an interview that the promising results merit confirmation in other populations. 

“When you see a study that is coming out of one country, when there could be issues related to antibiotic sensitivity in H pylori, it really is important to decide whether or not this is applicable to other patient populations,” said Schnoll-Sussman, who was not involved in the study. 

She noted that this is also true of the findings from the subgroup as it is unclear whether average rates of BMI are notably lower in Thailand from other countries.

“As we know, BMI affects so many things with disease states. So, it’s a possibility in a country where the BMI is actually lower, there may be something else about these individuals in terms of their wellness status that could be underlying the effect.” 

The study had no specific funding, although Takeda supplied treatments used in the analysis. Yongwatana reported no relevant financial relationships. Schnoll-Sussman reported serving as an advisory committee/board member for Braintree, Ethicon, Implantica, and Phathom. 

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

TOPLINE:

There is no significant association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk for cardiovascular events, a meta-analysis shows. However, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do experience a slight increase in cardiovascular events with PPI use.

METHODOLOGY:

• PPIs are commonly used gastric acid suppressants; however, they have pleiotropic effects, some of which have been hypothesized to augment cardiovascular disorders.
• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with at least 100 patients and treatment durations > 30 days, which compared groups receiving PPIs to those on placebo or other active treatments.
• The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarctions, nonfatal strokes, fatal cardiovascular adverse events, coronary revascularizations, and hospitalizations for unstable angina.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included data from 52 placebo-controlled trials, with 14,988 patients and 8323 patients randomized to receive a PPI or placebo, respectively; the mean treatment duration was 0.45 person-years for those treated with PPIs and 0.32 person-years for those treated with placebo.
• Among placebo-controlled trials, 24 were conducted in patients with GERD.
• Researchers also included 61 active-controlled trials that compared PPIs with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (51 trials) or other active treatments.
• The incidence rate ratio for the primary outcome was 0.72 when comparing PPI to placebo, indicating no significant association between PPI and cardiovascular events.
• Among patients with GERD, cardiovascular events occurred only in those treated with PPIs, leading to approximately one excess cardiovascular event per 100 person-years of PPI treatment relative to placebo.
• Researchers found no association between PPI treatment and the risk for cardiovascular events in trials comparing PPIs with other active treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found no association of cardiovascular events with PPI treatment,” the authors wrote. “Cardiovascular events appeared more frequent with PPI treatment in GERD trials, but results from this subgroup should be interpreted with the limitations of the analysis in mind.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Andrew D. Mosholder, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology, US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked individual patient data, which precluded a time-to-event analysis or an analysis accounting for patient characteristics such as age or sex. The mean duration of PPI treatment in these trials was a few months, limiting the assessment of cardiovascular risk with extended use. The risk estimates were influenced the most by data on omeprazole and esomeprazole.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

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

TOPLINE:

There is no significant association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk for cardiovascular events, a meta-analysis shows. However, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do experience a slight increase in cardiovascular events with PPI use.

METHODOLOGY:

• PPIs are commonly used gastric acid suppressants; however, they have pleiotropic effects, some of which have been hypothesized to augment cardiovascular disorders.
• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with at least 100 patients and treatment durations > 30 days, which compared groups receiving PPIs to those on placebo or other active treatments.
• The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarctions, nonfatal strokes, fatal cardiovascular adverse events, coronary revascularizations, and hospitalizations for unstable angina.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included data from 52 placebo-controlled trials, with 14,988 patients and 8323 patients randomized to receive a PPI or placebo, respectively; the mean treatment duration was 0.45 person-years for those treated with PPIs and 0.32 person-years for those treated with placebo.
• Among placebo-controlled trials, 24 were conducted in patients with GERD.
• Researchers also included 61 active-controlled trials that compared PPIs with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (51 trials) or other active treatments.
• The incidence rate ratio for the primary outcome was 0.72 when comparing PPI to placebo, indicating no significant association between PPI and cardiovascular events.
• Among patients with GERD, cardiovascular events occurred only in those treated with PPIs, leading to approximately one excess cardiovascular event per 100 person-years of PPI treatment relative to placebo.
• Researchers found no association between PPI treatment and the risk for cardiovascular events in trials comparing PPIs with other active treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found no association of cardiovascular events with PPI treatment,” the authors wrote. “Cardiovascular events appeared more frequent with PPI treatment in GERD trials, but results from this subgroup should be interpreted with the limitations of the analysis in mind.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Andrew D. Mosholder, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology, US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked individual patient data, which precluded a time-to-event analysis or an analysis accounting for patient characteristics such as age or sex. The mean duration of PPI treatment in these trials was a few months, limiting the assessment of cardiovascular risk with extended use. The risk estimates were influenced the most by data on omeprazole and esomeprazole.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

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

TOPLINE:

There is no significant association between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and risk for cardiovascular events, a meta-analysis shows. However, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do experience a slight increase in cardiovascular events with PPI use.

METHODOLOGY:

• PPIs are commonly used gastric acid suppressants; however, they have pleiotropic effects, some of which have been hypothesized to augment cardiovascular disorders.
• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with at least 100 patients and treatment durations > 30 days, which compared groups receiving PPIs to those on placebo or other active treatments.
• The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarctions, nonfatal strokes, fatal cardiovascular adverse events, coronary revascularizations, and hospitalizations for unstable angina.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included data from 52 placebo-controlled trials, with 14,988 patients and 8323 patients randomized to receive a PPI or placebo, respectively; the mean treatment duration was 0.45 person-years for those treated with PPIs and 0.32 person-years for those treated with placebo.
• Among placebo-controlled trials, 24 were conducted in patients with GERD.
• Researchers also included 61 active-controlled trials that compared PPIs with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (51 trials) or other active treatments.
• The incidence rate ratio for the primary outcome was 0.72 when comparing PPI to placebo, indicating no significant association between PPI and cardiovascular events.
• Among patients with GERD, cardiovascular events occurred only in those treated with PPIs, leading to approximately one excess cardiovascular event per 100 person-years of PPI treatment relative to placebo.
• Researchers found no association between PPI treatment and the risk for cardiovascular events in trials comparing PPIs with other active treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found no association of cardiovascular events with PPI treatment,” the authors wrote. “Cardiovascular events appeared more frequent with PPI treatment in GERD trials, but results from this subgroup should be interpreted with the limitations of the analysis in mind.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Andrew D. Mosholder, MD, MPH, Division of Epidemiology, US Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study lacked individual patient data, which precluded a time-to-event analysis or an analysis accounting for patient characteristics such as age or sex. The mean duration of PPI treatment in these trials was a few months, limiting the assessment of cardiovascular risk with extended use. The risk estimates were influenced the most by data on omeprazole and esomeprazole.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

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

VIENNA — Cendakimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL) 13, improved symptoms and reduced esophageal eosinophil counts in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
 

Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’

EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.

In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.

For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.

A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.

Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.

Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.

The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.

The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).

The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.

Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.

“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.

Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.

“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”

Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Cendakimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL) 13, improved symptoms and reduced esophageal eosinophil counts in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
 

Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’

EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.

In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.

For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.

A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.

Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.

Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.

The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.

The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).

The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.

Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.

“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.

Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.

“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”

Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Cendakimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL) 13, improved symptoms and reduced esophageal eosinophil counts in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
 

Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’

EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.

In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.

For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.

A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.

Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.

Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.

The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.

The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).

The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.

Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.

“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.

Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.

“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”

Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

While most potassium-competitive acid blockers demonstrate superior healing rates than proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with erosive esophagitis, both types of treatment offer relief compared with placebo, a meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a database search up to May 31, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of potassium-competitive acid blockers and PPIs for the treatment of erosive esophagitis. They included 34 trials in a systematic review and a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of the two medication classes in this patient population.
• The trials included 25,054 patients with erosive esophagitis, and the treatments involved were standard or double doses of potassium-competitive acid blockers (tegoprazan, vonoprazan, keverprazan, and fexuprazan), PPIs (esomeprazole, ilaprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole), or placebo.
• The researchers compared the healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The main analysis found that both potassium-competitive acid blockers and PPIs showed better healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks than placebo. This finding held up in a subgroup analysis of patients with and without severe erosive esophagitis at both time points.
• For most treatments, the pooled healing rates at 8 weeks were significantly higher than those at 4 weeks.
• In the main analysis, ilaprazole 10 mg once daily had the best healing rate (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 89.3) at 4 weeks, followed by vonoprazan 40 mg once daily (SUCRA, 86.7). At 8 weeks, keverprazan 20 mg once daily ranked best (SUCRA, 84.7), followed by ilaprazole 10 mg once daily (SUCRA, 82.0).
• The subgroup analysis found that healing rates were higher with most potassium-competitive acid blockers than with PPIs, particularly for patients with severe erosive esophagitis. Keverprazan 20 mg daily was found to have the highest healing rate at 8 weeks for both severe and non-severe erosive esophagitis, and vonoprazan 40 mg daily had a relatively higher healing rate at 4 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

The finding that most potassium-competitive acid blockers showed a higher healing rate than PPIs, particularly for patients with severe erosive esophagitis, “may help inform future directions of treatment,” the authors wrote. But high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm potassium-competitive acid blockers’ healing effect in patients with erosive esophagitis, they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yin Liu of the Henan Cancer Hospital (Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University), Zhengzhou, and Zhifeng Gao of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First People’s Hospital of Xuzhou, Xuzhou, China, was published online in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The limitations of the study included heterogeneity and bias across included studies, a lack of head-to-head trials for all included treatments, and insufficient reporting on outcomes based on the severity of erosive esophagitis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors received no financial support for the study. There were no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

While most potassium-competitive acid blockers demonstrate superior healing rates than proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with erosive esophagitis, both types of treatment offer relief compared with placebo, a meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a database search up to May 31, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of potassium-competitive acid blockers and PPIs for the treatment of erosive esophagitis. They included 34 trials in a systematic review and a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of the two medication classes in this patient population.
• The trials included 25,054 patients with erosive esophagitis, and the treatments involved were standard or double doses of potassium-competitive acid blockers (tegoprazan, vonoprazan, keverprazan, and fexuprazan), PPIs (esomeprazole, ilaprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole), or placebo.
• The researchers compared the healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The main analysis found that both potassium-competitive acid blockers and PPIs showed better healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks than placebo. This finding held up in a subgroup analysis of patients with and without severe erosive esophagitis at both time points.
• For most treatments, the pooled healing rates at 8 weeks were significantly higher than those at 4 weeks.
• In the main analysis, ilaprazole 10 mg once daily had the best healing rate (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 89.3) at 4 weeks, followed by vonoprazan 40 mg once daily (SUCRA, 86.7). At 8 weeks, keverprazan 20 mg once daily ranked best (SUCRA, 84.7), followed by ilaprazole 10 mg once daily (SUCRA, 82.0).
• The subgroup analysis found that healing rates were higher with most potassium-competitive acid blockers than with PPIs, particularly for patients with severe erosive esophagitis. Keverprazan 20 mg daily was found to have the highest healing rate at 8 weeks for both severe and non-severe erosive esophagitis, and vonoprazan 40 mg daily had a relatively higher healing rate at 4 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

The finding that most potassium-competitive acid blockers showed a higher healing rate than PPIs, particularly for patients with severe erosive esophagitis, “may help inform future directions of treatment,” the authors wrote. But high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm potassium-competitive acid blockers’ healing effect in patients with erosive esophagitis, they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yin Liu of the Henan Cancer Hospital (Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University), Zhengzhou, and Zhifeng Gao of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First People’s Hospital of Xuzhou, Xuzhou, China, was published online in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The limitations of the study included heterogeneity and bias across included studies, a lack of head-to-head trials for all included treatments, and insufficient reporting on outcomes based on the severity of erosive esophagitis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors received no financial support for the study. There were no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

While most potassium-competitive acid blockers demonstrate superior healing rates than proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with erosive esophagitis, both types of treatment offer relief compared with placebo, a meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a database search up to May 31, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of potassium-competitive acid blockers and PPIs for the treatment of erosive esophagitis. They included 34 trials in a systematic review and a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of the two medication classes in this patient population.
• The trials included 25,054 patients with erosive esophagitis, and the treatments involved were standard or double doses of potassium-competitive acid blockers (tegoprazan, vonoprazan, keverprazan, and fexuprazan), PPIs (esomeprazole, ilaprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole), or placebo.
• The researchers compared the healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The main analysis found that both potassium-competitive acid blockers and PPIs showed better healing rates at 4 and 8 weeks than placebo. This finding held up in a subgroup analysis of patients with and without severe erosive esophagitis at both time points.
• For most treatments, the pooled healing rates at 8 weeks were significantly higher than those at 4 weeks.
• In the main analysis, ilaprazole 10 mg once daily had the best healing rate (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 89.3) at 4 weeks, followed by vonoprazan 40 mg once daily (SUCRA, 86.7). At 8 weeks, keverprazan 20 mg once daily ranked best (SUCRA, 84.7), followed by ilaprazole 10 mg once daily (SUCRA, 82.0).
• The subgroup analysis found that healing rates were higher with most potassium-competitive acid blockers than with PPIs, particularly for patients with severe erosive esophagitis. Keverprazan 20 mg daily was found to have the highest healing rate at 8 weeks for both severe and non-severe erosive esophagitis, and vonoprazan 40 mg daily had a relatively higher healing rate at 4 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

The finding that most potassium-competitive acid blockers showed a higher healing rate than PPIs, particularly for patients with severe erosive esophagitis, “may help inform future directions of treatment,” the authors wrote. But high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm potassium-competitive acid blockers’ healing effect in patients with erosive esophagitis, they added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yin Liu of the Henan Cancer Hospital (Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University), Zhengzhou, and Zhifeng Gao of the Department of Gastroenterology, The First People’s Hospital of Xuzhou, Xuzhou, China, was published online in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The limitations of the study included heterogeneity and bias across included studies, a lack of head-to-head trials for all included treatments, and insufficient reporting on outcomes based on the severity of erosive esophagitis. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors received no financial support for the study. There were no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Voquezna (vonoprazan, Phathom Pharmaceuticals) 10-mg tablets for the relief of heartburn associated with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in adults.

It represents the third indication for the potassium-competitive acid blocker, which is already approved to treat all severities of erosive esophagitis and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in combination with antibiotics.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval in nonerosive GERD was supported by results of the PHALCON-nonerosive GERD-301 study, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of once-daily Voquezna in more than 700 adults with nonerosive GERD experiencing at least 4 days of heartburn per week.

“Vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with [nonerosive GERD], with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. This treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period,” the study team wrote in a paper published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , and reported on by this news organization.

Voquezna “provides physicians with a novel, first-in-class treatment that can quickly and significantly reduce heartburn for many adult patients” with nonerosive GERD, Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, professor emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Medicine in Memphis, said in a news release. 

The most common adverse events reported in patients treated with Voquezna during the 4-week placebo-controlled period were abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and urinary tract infection. 

Upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis were also reported in patients who taking Voquezna in the 20-week extension phase of the trial.

Full prescribing information is available online.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Voquezna (vonoprazan, Phathom Pharmaceuticals) 10-mg tablets for the relief of heartburn associated with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in adults.

It represents the third indication for the potassium-competitive acid blocker, which is already approved to treat all severities of erosive esophagitis and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in combination with antibiotics.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval in nonerosive GERD was supported by results of the PHALCON-nonerosive GERD-301 study, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of once-daily Voquezna in more than 700 adults with nonerosive GERD experiencing at least 4 days of heartburn per week.

“Vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with [nonerosive GERD], with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. This treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period,” the study team wrote in a paper published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , and reported on by this news organization.

Voquezna “provides physicians with a novel, first-in-class treatment that can quickly and significantly reduce heartburn for many adult patients” with nonerosive GERD, Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, professor emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Medicine in Memphis, said in a news release. 

The most common adverse events reported in patients treated with Voquezna during the 4-week placebo-controlled period were abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and urinary tract infection. 

Upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis were also reported in patients who taking Voquezna in the 20-week extension phase of the trial.

Full prescribing information is available online.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Voquezna (vonoprazan, Phathom Pharmaceuticals) 10-mg tablets for the relief of heartburn associated with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in adults.

It represents the third indication for the potassium-competitive acid blocker, which is already approved to treat all severities of erosive esophagitis and to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in combination with antibiotics.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval in nonerosive GERD was supported by results of the PHALCON-nonerosive GERD-301 study, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of once-daily Voquezna in more than 700 adults with nonerosive GERD experiencing at least 4 days of heartburn per week.

“Vonoprazan was efficacious in reducing heartburn symptoms in patients with [nonerosive GERD], with the benefit appearing to begin as early as the first day of therapy. This treatment effect persisted after the initial 4-week placebo-controlled period throughout the 20-week extension period,” the study team wrote in a paper published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , and reported on by this news organization.

Voquezna “provides physicians with a novel, first-in-class treatment that can quickly and significantly reduce heartburn for many adult patients” with nonerosive GERD, Colin W. Howden, MD, AGAF, professor emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Medicine in Memphis, said in a news release. 

The most common adverse events reported in patients treated with Voquezna during the 4-week placebo-controlled period were abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and urinary tract infection. 

Upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis were also reported in patients who taking Voquezna in the 20-week extension phase of the trial.

Full prescribing information is available online.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if there were tests that could tell you whether the following drugs were a good match for your patients: Antidepressants, statins, painkillers, anticlotting medicines, chemotherapy agents, HIV treatments, organ transplant antirejection drugs, proton pump inhibitors for heartburn, and more?

That’s quite a list. And that’s pharmacogenetics, testing patients for genetic differences that affect how well a given drug will work for them and what kind of side effects to expect.

“About 9 out of 10 people will have a genetic difference in their DNA that can impact how they respond to common medications,” said Emily J. Cicali, PharmD, a clinical associate at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

Dr. Cicali is the clinical director of UF Health’s MyRx, a virtual program that gives Florida and New Jersey residents access to pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests plus expert interpretation by the health system’s pharmacists. Genetic factors are thought to contribute to about 25% or more of inappropriate drug responses or adverse events, said Kristin Wiisanen, PharmD, dean of the College of Pharmacy at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago.

“Pharmacogenetics helps consumers avoid drugs that may not work well for them or could cause serious adverse events. It’s personalized medicine,” Dr. Cicali said.

Through a cheek swab or blood sample, the MyRx program — and a growing number of health system programs, doctors’ offices, and home tests available across the United States — gives consumers a window on inherited gene variants that can affect how their body activates, metabolizes, and clears away medications from a long list of widely used drugs.

Why PGx Tests Can Have a Big Impact

These tests work by looking for genes that control drug metabolism.

“You have several different drug-metabolizing enzymes in your liver,” Dr. Cicali explained. “Pharmacogenetic tests look for gene variants that encode for these enzymes. If you’re an ultrarapid metabolizer, you have more of the enzymes that metabolize certain drugs, and there could be a risk the drug won’t work well because it doesn’t stay in the body long enough. On the other end of the spectrum, poor metabolizers have low levels of enzymes that affect certain drugs, so the drugs hang around longer and cause side effects.”

While pharmacogenetics is still considered an emerging science, it’s becoming more mainstream as test prices drop, insurance coverage expands, and an explosion of new research boosts understanding of gene-drug interactions, Dr. Wiisanen said.

Politicians are trying to extend its reach, too. The Right Drug Dose Now Act of 2024, introduced in Congress in late March, aims to accelerate the use of PGx by boosting public awareness and by inserting PGx test results into consumers’ electronic health records. (Though a similar bill died in a US House subcommittee in 2023.)

“The use of pharmacogenetic data to guide prescribing is growing rapidly,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “It’s becoming a routine part of drug therapy for many medications.”

What the Research Shows

When researchers sequenced the DNA of more than 10,000 Mayo Clinic patients, they made a discovery that might surprise many Americans: Gene variants that affect the effectiveness and safety of widely used drugs are not rare glitches. More than 99% of study participants had at least one. And 79% had three or more.

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study — one of the largest PGx studies ever conducted in the United States — looked at 77 gene variants, most involved with drug metabolism in the liver. Researchers focused closely on 13 with extensively studied, gene-based prescribing recommendations for 21 drugs including antidepressants, statins, pain killers, anticlotting medications for heart conditions, HIV treatments, chemotherapy agents, and antirejection drugs for organ transplants.

When researchers added participants’ genetic data to their electronic health records, they also sent semi-urgent alerts, which are alerts with the potential for severe harm, to the clinicians of 61 study volunteers. Over half changed patients’ drugs or doses.

The changes made a difference. One participant taking the pain drug tramadol turned out to be a poor metabolizer and was having dizzy spells because blood levels of the drug stayed high for long periods. Stopping tramadol stopped the dizziness. A participant taking escitalopram plus bupropion for major depression found out that the combo was likely ineffective because they metabolized escitalopram rapidly. A switch to a higher dose of bupropion alone put their depression into full remission.

“So many factors play into how you respond to medications,” said Mayo Clinic pharmacogenomics pharmacist Jessica Wright, PharmD, BCACP, one of the study authors. “Genetics is one of those pieces. Pharmacogenetic testing can reveal things that clinicians may not have been aware of or could help explain a patient’s exaggerated side effect.”

Pharmacogenetics is also called pharmacogenomics. The terms are often used interchangeably, even among PGx pharmacists, though the first refers to how individual genes influence drug response and the second to the effects of multiple genes, said Kelly E. Caudle, PharmD, PhD, an associate member of the Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Caudle is also co-principal investigator and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). The group creates, publishes, and posts evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for drugs with well-researched PGx influences.

By any name, PGx may help explain, predict, and sidestep unpredictable responses to a variety of drugs:

• In a 2023 multicenter study of 6944 people from seven European countries in The Lancet, those given customized drug treatments based on a 12-gene PGx panel had 30% fewer side effects than those who didn’t get this personalized prescribing. People in the study were being treated for cancer, heart disease, and mental health issues, among other conditions.
• In a 2023  from China’s Tongji University, Shanghai, of 650 survivors of strokes and transient ischemic attacks, those whose antiplatelet drugs (such as clopidogrel) were customized based on PGx testing had a lower risk for stroke and other vascular events in the next 90 days. The study was published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.
• In a University of Pennsylvania  of 1944 adults with major depression, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, those whose antidepressants were guided by PGx test results were 28% more likely to go into remission during the first 24 weeks of treatment than those in a control group. But by 24 weeks, equal numbers were in remission. A 2023 Chinese  of 11 depression studies, published in BMC Psychiatry, came to a similar conclusion: PGx-guided antidepressant prescriptions may help people feel better quicker, perhaps by avoiding some of the usual trial-and-error of different depression drugs.

PGx checks are already strongly recommended or considered routine before some medications are prescribed. These include abacavir (Ziagen), an antiviral treatment for HIV that can have severe side effects in people with one gene variant.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends genetic testing for people with colon cancer before starting the drug irinotecan (Camptosar), which can cause severe diarrhea and raise infection risk in people with a gene variant that slows the drug’s elimination from the body.

Genetic testing is also recommended by the FDA for people with acute lymphoblastic leukemia before receiving the chemotherapy drug mercaptopurine (Purinethol) because a gene variant that affects drug processing can trigger serious side effects and raise the risk for infection at standard dosages.

“One of the key benefits of pharmacogenomic testing is in preventing adverse drug reactions,” Dr. Wiisanen said. “Testing of the thiopurine methyltransferase enzyme to guide dosing with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine can help prevent myelosuppression, a serious adverse drug reaction caused by lower production of blood cells in bone marrow.”

When, Why, and How to Test

“A family doctor should consider a PGx test if a patient is planning on taking a medication for which there is a CPIC guideline with a dosing recommendation,” said Teri Klein, PhD, professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California, and principal investigator at PharmGKB, an online resource funded by the NIH that provides information for healthcare practitioners, researchers, and consumers about PGx. Affiliated with CPIC, it’s based at Stanford University.

You might also consider it for patients already on a drug who are “not responding or experiencing side effects,” Dr. Caudle said.

Here’s how four PGx experts suggest consumers and physicians approach this option.

Find a Test

More than a dozen PGx tests are on the market — some only a provider can order, others a consumer can order after a review by their provider or by a provider from the testing company. Some of the tests (using saliva) may be administered at home, while blood tests are done in a doctor’s office or laboratory. Companies that offer the tests include ARUP Laboratories, Genomind, Labcorp, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Myriad Neuroscience, Precision Sciences Inc., Tempus, and OneOme, but there are many others online. (Keep in mind that many laboratories offer “lab-developed tests” — created for use in a single laboratory — but these can be harder to verify. “The FDA regulates pharmacogenomic testing in laboratories,” Dr. Wiisanen said, “but many of the regulatory parameters are still being defined.”)

Because PGx is so new, there is no official list of recommended tests. So you’ll have to do a little homework. You can check that the laboratory is accredited by searching for it in the NIH Genetic Testing Laboratory Registry database. Beyond that, you’ll have to consult other evidence-based resources to confirm that the drug you’re interested in has research-backed data about specific gene variants (alleles) that affect metabolism as well as research-based clinical guidelines for using PGx results to make prescribing decisions.

The CPIC’s guidelines include dosing and alternate drug recommendations for more than 100 antidepressants, chemotherapy drugs, the antiplatelet and anticlotting drugs clopidogrel and warfarin, local anesthetics, antivirals and antibacterials, pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs, and some cholesterol-lowering statins such as lovastatin and fluvastatin.

For help figuring out if a test looks for the right gene variants, Dr. Caudle and Dr. Wright recommended checking with the Association for Molecular Pathology’s website. The group published a brief list of best practices for pharmacogenomic testing in 2019. And it keeps a list of gene variants (alleles) that should be included in tests. Clinical guidelines from the CPIC and other groups, available on PharmGKB’s website, also list gene variants that affect the metabolism of the drug.

Consider Cost

The price tag for a test is typically several hundred dollars — but it can run as high as $1000-$2500. And health insurance doesn’t always pick up the tab.

In a 2023 University of Florida study of more than 1000 insurance claims for PGx testing, the number reimbursed varied from 72% for a pain diagnosis to 52% for cardiology to 46% for psychiatry.

Medicare covers some PGx testing when a consumer and their providers meet certain criteria, including whether a drug being considered has a significant gene-drug interaction. California’s Medi-Cal health insurance program covers PGx as do Medicaid programs in some states, including Arkansas and Rhode Island. You can find state-by-state coverage information on the Genetics Policy Hub’s website.

Understand the Results

As more insurers cover PGx, Dr. Klein and Dr. Wiisanen say the field will grow and more providers will use it to inform prescribing. But some health systems aren’t waiting.

In addition to UF Health’s MyRx, PGx is part of personalized medicine programs at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Endeavor Health in Chicago, the Mayo Clinic, the University of California, San Francisco, Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

Beyond testing, they offer a very useful service: A consult with a pharmacogenetics pharmacist to review the results and explain what they mean for a consumer’s current and future medications.

Physicians and curious consumers can also consult CPIC’s guidelines, which give recommendations about how to interpret the results of a PGx test, said Dr. Klein, a co-principal investigator at CPIC. CPIC has a grading system for both the evidence that supports the recommendation (high, moderate, or weak) and the recommendation itself (strong, moderate, or optional).

Currently, labeling for 456 prescription drugs sold in the United States includes some type of PGx information, according to the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling and an annotated guide from PharmGKB.

Just 108 drug labels currently tell doctors and patients what to do with the information — such as requiring or suggesting testing or offering prescribing recommendations, according to PharmGKB. In contrast, PharmGKB’s online resources include evidence-based clinical guidelines for 201 drugs from CPIC and from professional PGx societies in the Netherlands, Canada, France, and elsewhere.

Consumers and physicians can also look for a pharmacist with pharmacogenetics training in their area or through a nearby medical center to learn more, Dr. Wright suggested. And while consumers can test without working with their own physician, the experts advise against it. Don’t stop or change the dose of medications you already take on your own, they say . And do work with your primary care practitioner or specialist to get tested and understand how the results fit into the bigger picture of how your body responds to your medications.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 55 new medications in 2023 and 11 more in 2024 to date. During a presentation on April 18 at the annual American College of Physicians Internal Medicine Meeting, Gerald Smetana, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, reviewed four of these new therapies that are likely to be particularly important for primary care clinicians. 

A New First-Line for GERD?

Vonoprazan, an oral potassium-competitive acid blocker — which received FDA approval in November 2023 — may be a good alternative for patients whose symptoms continue to linger despite taking medications designated to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). 

GERD is the most common gastrointestinal symptom encountered by primary care physicians. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-line treatment for the condition but can have long-term side effects such as Clostridioides difficile infection and kidney lesions.

“We know that not all patients are going to have symptom relief with H2 blockers and PPIs, so there’s an opportunity for patients who don’t get full symptom relief,” Dr. Smetana told attendees. 

Vonoprazan blocks potassium binding to ATPase proton pumps and inhibits the secretion of gastric acid.

The approval of vonoprazan for erosive GERD was based on results from the phase 3 PHALCON-EE study, a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study that found the drug to be more effective than lansoprazole in treating erosive esophagitis.

Vonoprazan “has more rapid absorption than PPIs [and a] longer half-life and is more potent than PPIs, so theoretically it could be more effective in certain settings,” Dr. Smetana said.

Vonoprazan is FDA approved for only 6 months of use. Despite its efficacy, cost may be a barrier to many patients. H2 blockers generally cost patients less than $10 for 1 month’s supply, whereas vonoprazan can cost up to $650.
 

Nonhormonal Drug for Menopause

Fezolinetant, the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the FDA to treat vasomotor symptoms, may be an option for women concerned about hormone-based therapy for menopausal hot flashes.

“[Fezolinetant] specifically works in the area of the brain that’s involved in body temperature regulation and sweating,” Dr. Smetana said.

Results from the SKYLIGHT 1 randomized controlled trial of fezolinetant found the medication reduced the frequency and severity of hot flashes. Some of the side effects include abdominal pain, diarrhea, and insomnia. 

Other nonestrogen treatments, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), gabapentin, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and hypnosis, are modestly effective, according to the North American Menopause Society.

“[Fezolinetant] offers a different option that physicians may be more comfortable prescribing,” Dr. Smetana said. “And I think this will be an important addition to nonhormonal therapy.”
 

RSV Vaccine for Everyone 

Once considered an illness that is more prevalent in young children, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has become more prevalent and severe among older adults. Between 60,000 and 120,000 older adults are hospitalized and 6000-10,000 die of RSV infection each year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The FDA has approved two RSV vaccines approved for older adults, but clinicians may find it challenging to get older patients vaccinated for this and other preventable illnesses.

Patients who received the RSV vaccine had an 83% relative risk reduction for the illness, according to a recent study, and an overall lower risk for hospitalization.

Moderna is developing an mRNA vaccine for RSV that is similar to many COVID-19 vaccines. A study published in 2023 in The New England Journal of Medicine found no cases of neuroinflammatory disorders among patients who received the mRNA RSV vaccine, with a median follow-up of 112 days.

“This is important given ongoing concerns of neurological safety,” among older adults who receive the RSV vaccine, Dr. Smetana said.

As of March 2024, the CDC recommends shared decision-making for adults older than 60 years and for healthcare providers to “consider” rather than “recommend” the vaccine for their patients. The agency’s Adult RSV Work Group plans to meet at June 2024 to reconsider whether shared clinical decision-making remains the preferred policy option.
 

New Antidepressants

A medication thrice rejected by the FDA is now heading a new class of drugs to treat major depressive disorder.

Gepirone, a 5-HT1A receptor agonist, has a different mechanism of action from that of SSRIs, which are currently considered the first-line treatment for depression. 

Gepirone was rejected by the FDA in 2002, 2004, and 2007, with concerns that the efficacy studies were too small. In 2015, an FDA advisory committee agreed that the evidence to date did not support approval of an extended-release form of the drug. But the agency decided to approve the medication in September 2023.

“So why is this medication worth discussing now?” Dr. Smetana said. “It’s because the side effect profile is different from existing antidepressants.” 

Many patients may stop using SSRIs because of side effects such as insomnia and loss of libido, Dr. Smetana said. Gepirone has the potential to avoid activation of other 5-HT receptors that mediate side effects, he said. 

Studies suggest that gepirone reduces both anxiety and depression scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in patients who have both conditions and decreases rates of depression relapse compared with placebo through at least 48 weeks. The drug also may be less likely than SSRIs to cause sexual dysfunction in men, Dr. Smetana said. 

Gepirone will be available to prescribe to patients in fall 2024.

Dr. Smetana reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 55 new medications in 2023 and 11 more in 2024 to date. During a presentation on April 18 at the annual American College of Physicians Internal Medicine Meeting, Gerald Smetana, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, reviewed four of these new therapies that are likely to be particularly important for primary care clinicians. 

A New First-Line for GERD?

Vonoprazan, an oral potassium-competitive acid blocker — which received FDA approval in November 2023 — may be a good alternative for patients whose symptoms continue to linger despite taking medications designated to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). 

GERD is the most common gastrointestinal symptom encountered by primary care physicians. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-line treatment for the condition but can have long-term side effects such as Clostridioides difficile infection and kidney lesions.

“We know that not all patients are going to have symptom relief with H2 blockers and PPIs, so there’s an opportunity for patients who don’t get full symptom relief,” Dr. Smetana told attendees. 

Vonoprazan blocks potassium binding to ATPase proton pumps and inhibits the secretion of gastric acid.

The approval of vonoprazan for erosive GERD was based on results from the phase 3 PHALCON-EE study, a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study that found the drug to be more effective than lansoprazole in treating erosive esophagitis.

Vonoprazan “has more rapid absorption than PPIs [and a] longer half-life and is more potent than PPIs, so theoretically it could be more effective in certain settings,” Dr. Smetana said.

Vonoprazan is FDA approved for only 6 months of use. Despite its efficacy, cost may be a barrier to many patients. H2 blockers generally cost patients less than $10 for 1 month’s supply, whereas vonoprazan can cost up to $650.
 

Nonhormonal Drug for Menopause

Fezolinetant, the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the FDA to treat vasomotor symptoms, may be an option for women concerned about hormone-based therapy for menopausal hot flashes.

“[Fezolinetant] specifically works in the area of the brain that’s involved in body temperature regulation and sweating,” Dr. Smetana said.

Results from the SKYLIGHT 1 randomized controlled trial of fezolinetant found the medication reduced the frequency and severity of hot flashes. Some of the side effects include abdominal pain, diarrhea, and insomnia. 

Other nonestrogen treatments, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), gabapentin, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and hypnosis, are modestly effective, according to the North American Menopause Society.

“[Fezolinetant] offers a different option that physicians may be more comfortable prescribing,” Dr. Smetana said. “And I think this will be an important addition to nonhormonal therapy.”
 

RSV Vaccine for Everyone 

Once considered an illness that is more prevalent in young children, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has become more prevalent and severe among older adults. Between 60,000 and 120,000 older adults are hospitalized and 6000-10,000 die of RSV infection each year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The FDA has approved two RSV vaccines approved for older adults, but clinicians may find it challenging to get older patients vaccinated for this and other preventable illnesses.

Patients who received the RSV vaccine had an 83% relative risk reduction for the illness, according to a recent study, and an overall lower risk for hospitalization.

Moderna is developing an mRNA vaccine for RSV that is similar to many COVID-19 vaccines. A study published in 2023 in The New England Journal of Medicine found no cases of neuroinflammatory disorders among patients who received the mRNA RSV vaccine, with a median follow-up of 112 days.

“This is important given ongoing concerns of neurological safety,” among older adults who receive the RSV vaccine, Dr. Smetana said.

As of March 2024, the CDC recommends shared decision-making for adults older than 60 years and for healthcare providers to “consider” rather than “recommend” the vaccine for their patients. The agency’s Adult RSV Work Group plans to meet at June 2024 to reconsider whether shared clinical decision-making remains the preferred policy option.
 

New Antidepressants

A medication thrice rejected by the FDA is now heading a new class of drugs to treat major depressive disorder.

Gepirone, a 5-HT1A receptor agonist, has a different mechanism of action from that of SSRIs, which are currently considered the first-line treatment for depression. 

Gepirone was rejected by the FDA in 2002, 2004, and 2007, with concerns that the efficacy studies were too small. In 2015, an FDA advisory committee agreed that the evidence to date did not support approval of an extended-release form of the drug. But the agency decided to approve the medication in September 2023.

“So why is this medication worth discussing now?” Dr. Smetana said. “It’s because the side effect profile is different from existing antidepressants.” 

Many patients may stop using SSRIs because of side effects such as insomnia and loss of libido, Dr. Smetana said. Gepirone has the potential to avoid activation of other 5-HT receptors that mediate side effects, he said. 

Studies suggest that gepirone reduces both anxiety and depression scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in patients who have both conditions and decreases rates of depression relapse compared with placebo through at least 48 weeks. The drug also may be less likely than SSRIs to cause sexual dysfunction in men, Dr. Smetana said. 

Gepirone will be available to prescribe to patients in fall 2024.

Dr. Smetana reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 55 new medications in 2023 and 11 more in 2024 to date. During a presentation on April 18 at the annual American College of Physicians Internal Medicine Meeting, Gerald Smetana, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of General Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, reviewed four of these new therapies that are likely to be particularly important for primary care clinicians. 

A New First-Line for GERD?

Vonoprazan, an oral potassium-competitive acid blocker — which received FDA approval in November 2023 — may be a good alternative for patients whose symptoms continue to linger despite taking medications designated to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). 

GERD is the most common gastrointestinal symptom encountered by primary care physicians. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the first-line treatment for the condition but can have long-term side effects such as Clostridioides difficile infection and kidney lesions.

“We know that not all patients are going to have symptom relief with H2 blockers and PPIs, so there’s an opportunity for patients who don’t get full symptom relief,” Dr. Smetana told attendees. 

Vonoprazan blocks potassium binding to ATPase proton pumps and inhibits the secretion of gastric acid.

The approval of vonoprazan for erosive GERD was based on results from the phase 3 PHALCON-EE study, a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study that found the drug to be more effective than lansoprazole in treating erosive esophagitis.

Vonoprazan “has more rapid absorption than PPIs [and a] longer half-life and is more potent than PPIs, so theoretically it could be more effective in certain settings,” Dr. Smetana said.

Vonoprazan is FDA approved for only 6 months of use. Despite its efficacy, cost may be a barrier to many patients. H2 blockers generally cost patients less than $10 for 1 month’s supply, whereas vonoprazan can cost up to $650.
 

Nonhormonal Drug for Menopause

Fezolinetant, the first neurokinin receptor antagonist to receive approval from the FDA to treat vasomotor symptoms, may be an option for women concerned about hormone-based therapy for menopausal hot flashes.

“[Fezolinetant] specifically works in the area of the brain that’s involved in body temperature regulation and sweating,” Dr. Smetana said.

Results from the SKYLIGHT 1 randomized controlled trial of fezolinetant found the medication reduced the frequency and severity of hot flashes. Some of the side effects include abdominal pain, diarrhea, and insomnia. 

Other nonestrogen treatments, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), gabapentin, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and hypnosis, are modestly effective, according to the North American Menopause Society.

“[Fezolinetant] offers a different option that physicians may be more comfortable prescribing,” Dr. Smetana said. “And I think this will be an important addition to nonhormonal therapy.”
 

RSV Vaccine for Everyone 

Once considered an illness that is more prevalent in young children, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has become more prevalent and severe among older adults. Between 60,000 and 120,000 older adults are hospitalized and 6000-10,000 die of RSV infection each year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The FDA has approved two RSV vaccines approved for older adults, but clinicians may find it challenging to get older patients vaccinated for this and other preventable illnesses.

Patients who received the RSV vaccine had an 83% relative risk reduction for the illness, according to a recent study, and an overall lower risk for hospitalization.

Moderna is developing an mRNA vaccine for RSV that is similar to many COVID-19 vaccines. A study published in 2023 in The New England Journal of Medicine found no cases of neuroinflammatory disorders among patients who received the mRNA RSV vaccine, with a median follow-up of 112 days.

“This is important given ongoing concerns of neurological safety,” among older adults who receive the RSV vaccine, Dr. Smetana said.

As of March 2024, the CDC recommends shared decision-making for adults older than 60 years and for healthcare providers to “consider” rather than “recommend” the vaccine for their patients. The agency’s Adult RSV Work Group plans to meet at June 2024 to reconsider whether shared clinical decision-making remains the preferred policy option.
 

New Antidepressants

A medication thrice rejected by the FDA is now heading a new class of drugs to treat major depressive disorder.

Gepirone, a 5-HT1A receptor agonist, has a different mechanism of action from that of SSRIs, which are currently considered the first-line treatment for depression. 

Gepirone was rejected by the FDA in 2002, 2004, and 2007, with concerns that the efficacy studies were too small. In 2015, an FDA advisory committee agreed that the evidence to date did not support approval of an extended-release form of the drug. But the agency decided to approve the medication in September 2023.

“So why is this medication worth discussing now?” Dr. Smetana said. “It’s because the side effect profile is different from existing antidepressants.” 

Many patients may stop using SSRIs because of side effects such as insomnia and loss of libido, Dr. Smetana said. Gepirone has the potential to avoid activation of other 5-HT receptors that mediate side effects, he said. 

Studies suggest that gepirone reduces both anxiety and depression scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in patients who have both conditions and decreases rates of depression relapse compared with placebo through at least 48 weeks. The drug also may be less likely than SSRIs to cause sexual dysfunction in men, Dr. Smetana said. 

Gepirone will be available to prescribe to patients in fall 2024.

Dr. Smetana reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is erosion of the esophageal epithelium due to chronic irritation. It can be caused by a number of factors but is primarily a result of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main symptoms of EE are heartburn and regurgitation; other symptoms can include epigastric pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, nausea, chronic cough, dental erosion, laryngitis, and asthma. Symptoms can be exacerbated by eating certain trigger foods or when lying down. Diagnosis requires testing to differentiate EE from other manifestations of GERD, including nonerosive esophagitis and Barrett esophagus (BE). EE occurs in approximately 30% of cases of GERD, and EE may evolve to BE in 1%-13% of cases.

Long-term management of EE focuses on relieving symptoms to allow the esophageal lining to heal, thereby reducing both acute symptoms and the risk for other complications. Management plans may incorporate lifestyle changes, such as dietary modifications and weight loss, alongside pharmacologic therapy. In extreme cases, surgery may be considered to repair a damaged esophagus and/or to prevent ongoing acid reflux. If left untreated, EE may progress, potentially leading to more serious conditions.

Here are five things to know about EE.

1. GERD is the main risk factor for EE, but not the only risk factor.

An estimated 1% of the population has EE. Risk factors other than GERD include:

Radiation therapy toxicity can cause acute or chronic EE. For individuals undergoing radiotherapy, radiation esophagitis is a relatively frequent complication. Acute esophagitis generally occurs in all patients taking radiation doses of 6000 cGy given in fractions of 1000 cGy per week. The risk is lower among patients on longer schedules and lower doses of radiotherapy.

Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections can cause EE. These include herpes, CMV, HIV, Helicobacter pylori, and Candida.

Food allergies, asthma, and eczema are associated with eosinophilic esophagitis, which disproportionately affects young men and has an estimated prevalence of 55 cases per 100,000 population.

Oral medication in pill form causes esophagitis at an estimated rate of 3.9 cases per 100,000 population per year. The mean age at diagnosis is 41.5 years. Oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate are the most common agents, along with antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, and clindamycin. There have also been reports of pill-induced esophagitis with NSAIDs, aspirin, ferrous sulfate, potassium chloride, and mexiletine.

Excessive vomiting can, in rare cases, cause esophagitis.

Certain autoimmune diseases can manifest as EE.

2. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the preferred treatment for EE.

Several over-the-counter and prescription medications can be used to manage the symptoms of EE. PPIs are the preferred treatment both in the acute setting and for maintenance therapy. PPIs help to alleviate symptoms and promote healing of the esophageal lining by reducing the production of stomach acid. Options include omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole. Many patients with EE require a dose that exceeds the FDA-approved dose for GERD. For instance, a 40-mg/d dosage of omeprazole is recommended in the latest guidelines, although the FDA-approved dosage is 20 mg/d.

H2-receptor antagonists, including famotidine, cimetidine, and nizatidine, may also be prescribed to reduce stomach acid production and promote healing in patients with EE due to GERD, but these agents are considered less efficacious than PPIs for either acute or maintenance therapy.

The potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan is the latest agent to be indicated for EE and may provide more potent acid suppression for patients. A randomized comparative trial showed noninferiority compared with lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of EE. In another randomized comparative study, the investigational PCAP fexuprazan was shown to be noninferior to the PPI esomeprazole in treating EE.

Mild GERD symptoms can be controlled by traditional antacids taken after each meal and at bedtime or with short-term use of prokinetic agents, which can help reduce acid reflux by improving esophageal and stomach motility and by increasing pressure to the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastric emptying is also accelerated by prokinetic agents. Long-term use is discouraged, as it may cause serious or life-threatening complications.

In patients who do not fully respond to PPI therapy, surgical therapy may be considered. Other candidates for surgery include younger patients, those who have difficulty adhering to treatment, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, patients with cardiac conduction defects, and those for whom the cost of treatment is prohibitive. Surgery may also be warranted if there are extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, such as enamel erosion; respiratory issues (eg, coughing, wheezing, aspiration); or ear, nose, and throat manifestations (eg, hoarseness, sore throat, otitis media). For those who have progressed to BE, surgical intervention is also indicated.

The types of surgery for patients with EE have evolved to include both transthoracic and transabdominal fundoplication. Usually, a 360° transabdominal fundoplication is performed. General anesthesia is required for laparoscopic fundoplication, in which five small incisions are used to create a new valve at the level of the esophagogastric junction by wrapping the fundus of the stomach around the esophagus.

Laparoscopic insertion of a small band known as the LINX Reflux Management System is FDA approved to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. The system creates a natural barrier to reflux by placing a band consisting of titanium beads with magnetic cores around the esophagus just above the stomach. The magnetic bond is temporarily disrupted by swallowing, allowing food and liquid to pass.

Endoscopic therapies are another treatment option for certain patients who are not considered candidates for surgery or long-term therapy. Among the types of endoscopic procedures are radiofrequency therapy, suturing/plication, and mucosal ablation/resection techniques at the gastroesophageal junction. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing is an area of interest because this technique offers significant durability of the recreated lower esophageal sphincter.

3. PPI therapy for GERD should be stopped before endoscopy is performed to confirm a diagnosis of EE.

A clinical diagnosis of GERD can be made if the presenting symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation, without chest pain or alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding. In this setting, once-daily PPIs are generally prescribed for 8 weeks to see if symptoms resolve. If symptoms have not resolved, a twice-daily PPI regimen may be prescribed. In patients who do not respond to PPIs, or for whom GERD returns after stopping therapy, an upper endoscopy with biopsy is recommended after 2-4 weeks off therapy to rule out other causes. Endoscopy should be the first step in diagnosis for individuals experiencing chest pain without heartburn; those in whom heart disease has been ruled out; individuals experiencing dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding; or those who have multiple risk factors for BE.

4. The most serious complication of EE is BE, which can lead to esophageal cancer.

Several complications can arise from EE. The most serious of these is BE, which can lead to esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE is characterized by the conversion of normal distal squamous esophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium. It has the potential to become malignant if it exhibits intestinal-type metaplasia. In the industrialized world, adenocarcinoma currently represents more than half of all esophageal cancers. The most common symptom of esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Other signs and symptoms include weight loss, hoarseness, chronic or intractable cough, bleeding, epigastric or retrosternal pain, frequent pneumonia, and, if metastatic, bone pain.

5. Lifestyle modifications can help control the symptoms of EE.

Guidelines recommend a number of lifestyle modification strategies to help control the symptoms of EE. Smoking cessation and weight loss are two evidence-based strategies for relieving symptoms of GERD and, ultimately, lowering the risk for esophageal cancer. One large prospective Norwegian cohort study (N = 29,610) found that stopping smoking improved GERD symptoms, but only in those with normal body mass index. In a smaller Japanese study (N = 191) specifically surveying people attempting smoking cessation, individuals who successfully stopped smoking had a 44% improvement in GERD symptoms at 1 year, vs an 18% improvement in those who continued to smoke, with no statistical difference between the success and failure groups based on patient body mass index (P = .60).

Other recommended strategies for nonpharmacologic management of EE symptoms include elevation of the head when lying down in bed and avoidance of lying down after eating, cessation of alcohol consumption, avoidance of food close to bedtime, and avoidance of trigger foods that can incite or worsen symptoms of acid reflux. Such trigger foods vary among individuals, but they often include fatty foods, coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, citrus fruits, and tomatoes.

Dr. Puerta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is erosion of the esophageal epithelium due to chronic irritation. It can be caused by a number of factors but is primarily a result of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main symptoms of EE are heartburn and regurgitation; other symptoms can include epigastric pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, nausea, chronic cough, dental erosion, laryngitis, and asthma. Symptoms can be exacerbated by eating certain trigger foods or when lying down. Diagnosis requires testing to differentiate EE from other manifestations of GERD, including nonerosive esophagitis and Barrett esophagus (BE). EE occurs in approximately 30% of cases of GERD, and EE may evolve to BE in 1%-13% of cases.

Long-term management of EE focuses on relieving symptoms to allow the esophageal lining to heal, thereby reducing both acute symptoms and the risk for other complications. Management plans may incorporate lifestyle changes, such as dietary modifications and weight loss, alongside pharmacologic therapy. In extreme cases, surgery may be considered to repair a damaged esophagus and/or to prevent ongoing acid reflux. If left untreated, EE may progress, potentially leading to more serious conditions.

Here are five things to know about EE.

1. GERD is the main risk factor for EE, but not the only risk factor.

An estimated 1% of the population has EE. Risk factors other than GERD include:

Radiation therapy toxicity can cause acute or chronic EE. For individuals undergoing radiotherapy, radiation esophagitis is a relatively frequent complication. Acute esophagitis generally occurs in all patients taking radiation doses of 6000 cGy given in fractions of 1000 cGy per week. The risk is lower among patients on longer schedules and lower doses of radiotherapy.

Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections can cause EE. These include herpes, CMV, HIV, Helicobacter pylori, and Candida.

Food allergies, asthma, and eczema are associated with eosinophilic esophagitis, which disproportionately affects young men and has an estimated prevalence of 55 cases per 100,000 population.

Oral medication in pill form causes esophagitis at an estimated rate of 3.9 cases per 100,000 population per year. The mean age at diagnosis is 41.5 years. Oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate are the most common agents, along with antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, and clindamycin. There have also been reports of pill-induced esophagitis with NSAIDs, aspirin, ferrous sulfate, potassium chloride, and mexiletine.

Excessive vomiting can, in rare cases, cause esophagitis.

Certain autoimmune diseases can manifest as EE.

2. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the preferred treatment for EE.

Several over-the-counter and prescription medications can be used to manage the symptoms of EE. PPIs are the preferred treatment both in the acute setting and for maintenance therapy. PPIs help to alleviate symptoms and promote healing of the esophageal lining by reducing the production of stomach acid. Options include omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole. Many patients with EE require a dose that exceeds the FDA-approved dose for GERD. For instance, a 40-mg/d dosage of omeprazole is recommended in the latest guidelines, although the FDA-approved dosage is 20 mg/d.

H2-receptor antagonists, including famotidine, cimetidine, and nizatidine, may also be prescribed to reduce stomach acid production and promote healing in patients with EE due to GERD, but these agents are considered less efficacious than PPIs for either acute or maintenance therapy.

The potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan is the latest agent to be indicated for EE and may provide more potent acid suppression for patients. A randomized comparative trial showed noninferiority compared with lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of EE. In another randomized comparative study, the investigational PCAP fexuprazan was shown to be noninferior to the PPI esomeprazole in treating EE.

Mild GERD symptoms can be controlled by traditional antacids taken after each meal and at bedtime or with short-term use of prokinetic agents, which can help reduce acid reflux by improving esophageal and stomach motility and by increasing pressure to the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastric emptying is also accelerated by prokinetic agents. Long-term use is discouraged, as it may cause serious or life-threatening complications.

In patients who do not fully respond to PPI therapy, surgical therapy may be considered. Other candidates for surgery include younger patients, those who have difficulty adhering to treatment, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, patients with cardiac conduction defects, and those for whom the cost of treatment is prohibitive. Surgery may also be warranted if there are extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, such as enamel erosion; respiratory issues (eg, coughing, wheezing, aspiration); or ear, nose, and throat manifestations (eg, hoarseness, sore throat, otitis media). For those who have progressed to BE, surgical intervention is also indicated.

The types of surgery for patients with EE have evolved to include both transthoracic and transabdominal fundoplication. Usually, a 360° transabdominal fundoplication is performed. General anesthesia is required for laparoscopic fundoplication, in which five small incisions are used to create a new valve at the level of the esophagogastric junction by wrapping the fundus of the stomach around the esophagus.

Laparoscopic insertion of a small band known as the LINX Reflux Management System is FDA approved to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. The system creates a natural barrier to reflux by placing a band consisting of titanium beads with magnetic cores around the esophagus just above the stomach. The magnetic bond is temporarily disrupted by swallowing, allowing food and liquid to pass.

Endoscopic therapies are another treatment option for certain patients who are not considered candidates for surgery or long-term therapy. Among the types of endoscopic procedures are radiofrequency therapy, suturing/plication, and mucosal ablation/resection techniques at the gastroesophageal junction. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing is an area of interest because this technique offers significant durability of the recreated lower esophageal sphincter.

3. PPI therapy for GERD should be stopped before endoscopy is performed to confirm a diagnosis of EE.

A clinical diagnosis of GERD can be made if the presenting symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation, without chest pain or alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding. In this setting, once-daily PPIs are generally prescribed for 8 weeks to see if symptoms resolve. If symptoms have not resolved, a twice-daily PPI regimen may be prescribed. In patients who do not respond to PPIs, or for whom GERD returns after stopping therapy, an upper endoscopy with biopsy is recommended after 2-4 weeks off therapy to rule out other causes. Endoscopy should be the first step in diagnosis for individuals experiencing chest pain without heartburn; those in whom heart disease has been ruled out; individuals experiencing dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding; or those who have multiple risk factors for BE.

4. The most serious complication of EE is BE, which can lead to esophageal cancer.

Several complications can arise from EE. The most serious of these is BE, which can lead to esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE is characterized by the conversion of normal distal squamous esophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium. It has the potential to become malignant if it exhibits intestinal-type metaplasia. In the industrialized world, adenocarcinoma currently represents more than half of all esophageal cancers. The most common symptom of esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Other signs and symptoms include weight loss, hoarseness, chronic or intractable cough, bleeding, epigastric or retrosternal pain, frequent pneumonia, and, if metastatic, bone pain.

5. Lifestyle modifications can help control the symptoms of EE.

Guidelines recommend a number of lifestyle modification strategies to help control the symptoms of EE. Smoking cessation and weight loss are two evidence-based strategies for relieving symptoms of GERD and, ultimately, lowering the risk for esophageal cancer. One large prospective Norwegian cohort study (N = 29,610) found that stopping smoking improved GERD symptoms, but only in those with normal body mass index. In a smaller Japanese study (N = 191) specifically surveying people attempting smoking cessation, individuals who successfully stopped smoking had a 44% improvement in GERD symptoms at 1 year, vs an 18% improvement in those who continued to smoke, with no statistical difference between the success and failure groups based on patient body mass index (P = .60).

Other recommended strategies for nonpharmacologic management of EE symptoms include elevation of the head when lying down in bed and avoidance of lying down after eating, cessation of alcohol consumption, avoidance of food close to bedtime, and avoidance of trigger foods that can incite or worsen symptoms of acid reflux. Such trigger foods vary among individuals, but they often include fatty foods, coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, citrus fruits, and tomatoes.

Dr. Puerta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is erosion of the esophageal epithelium due to chronic irritation. It can be caused by a number of factors but is primarily a result of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main symptoms of EE are heartburn and regurgitation; other symptoms can include epigastric pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, nausea, chronic cough, dental erosion, laryngitis, and asthma. Symptoms can be exacerbated by eating certain trigger foods or when lying down. Diagnosis requires testing to differentiate EE from other manifestations of GERD, including nonerosive esophagitis and Barrett esophagus (BE). EE occurs in approximately 30% of cases of GERD, and EE may evolve to BE in 1%-13% of cases.

Long-term management of EE focuses on relieving symptoms to allow the esophageal lining to heal, thereby reducing both acute symptoms and the risk for other complications. Management plans may incorporate lifestyle changes, such as dietary modifications and weight loss, alongside pharmacologic therapy. In extreme cases, surgery may be considered to repair a damaged esophagus and/or to prevent ongoing acid reflux. If left untreated, EE may progress, potentially leading to more serious conditions.

Here are five things to know about EE.

1. GERD is the main risk factor for EE, but not the only risk factor.

An estimated 1% of the population has EE. Risk factors other than GERD include:

Radiation therapy toxicity can cause acute or chronic EE. For individuals undergoing radiotherapy, radiation esophagitis is a relatively frequent complication. Acute esophagitis generally occurs in all patients taking radiation doses of 6000 cGy given in fractions of 1000 cGy per week. The risk is lower among patients on longer schedules and lower doses of radiotherapy.

Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections can cause EE. These include herpes, CMV, HIV, Helicobacter pylori, and Candida.

Food allergies, asthma, and eczema are associated with eosinophilic esophagitis, which disproportionately affects young men and has an estimated prevalence of 55 cases per 100,000 population.

Oral medication in pill form causes esophagitis at an estimated rate of 3.9 cases per 100,000 population per year. The mean age at diagnosis is 41.5 years. Oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate are the most common agents, along with antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, and clindamycin. There have also been reports of pill-induced esophagitis with NSAIDs, aspirin, ferrous sulfate, potassium chloride, and mexiletine.

Excessive vomiting can, in rare cases, cause esophagitis.

Certain autoimmune diseases can manifest as EE.

2. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the preferred treatment for EE.

Several over-the-counter and prescription medications can be used to manage the symptoms of EE. PPIs are the preferred treatment both in the acute setting and for maintenance therapy. PPIs help to alleviate symptoms and promote healing of the esophageal lining by reducing the production of stomach acid. Options include omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole. Many patients with EE require a dose that exceeds the FDA-approved dose for GERD. For instance, a 40-mg/d dosage of omeprazole is recommended in the latest guidelines, although the FDA-approved dosage is 20 mg/d.

H2-receptor antagonists, including famotidine, cimetidine, and nizatidine, may also be prescribed to reduce stomach acid production and promote healing in patients with EE due to GERD, but these agents are considered less efficacious than PPIs for either acute or maintenance therapy.

The potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan is the latest agent to be indicated for EE and may provide more potent acid suppression for patients. A randomized comparative trial showed noninferiority compared with lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of EE. In another randomized comparative study, the investigational PCAP fexuprazan was shown to be noninferior to the PPI esomeprazole in treating EE.

Mild GERD symptoms can be controlled by traditional antacids taken after each meal and at bedtime or with short-term use of prokinetic agents, which can help reduce acid reflux by improving esophageal and stomach motility and by increasing pressure to the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastric emptying is also accelerated by prokinetic agents. Long-term use is discouraged, as it may cause serious or life-threatening complications.

In patients who do not fully respond to PPI therapy, surgical therapy may be considered. Other candidates for surgery include younger patients, those who have difficulty adhering to treatment, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, patients with cardiac conduction defects, and those for whom the cost of treatment is prohibitive. Surgery may also be warranted if there are extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, such as enamel erosion; respiratory issues (eg, coughing, wheezing, aspiration); or ear, nose, and throat manifestations (eg, hoarseness, sore throat, otitis media). For those who have progressed to BE, surgical intervention is also indicated.

The types of surgery for patients with EE have evolved to include both transthoracic and transabdominal fundoplication. Usually, a 360° transabdominal fundoplication is performed. General anesthesia is required for laparoscopic fundoplication, in which five small incisions are used to create a new valve at the level of the esophagogastric junction by wrapping the fundus of the stomach around the esophagus.

Laparoscopic insertion of a small band known as the LINX Reflux Management System is FDA approved to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. The system creates a natural barrier to reflux by placing a band consisting of titanium beads with magnetic cores around the esophagus just above the stomach. The magnetic bond is temporarily disrupted by swallowing, allowing food and liquid to pass.

Endoscopic therapies are another treatment option for certain patients who are not considered candidates for surgery or long-term therapy. Among the types of endoscopic procedures are radiofrequency therapy, suturing/plication, and mucosal ablation/resection techniques at the gastroesophageal junction. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing is an area of interest because this technique offers significant durability of the recreated lower esophageal sphincter.

3. PPI therapy for GERD should be stopped before endoscopy is performed to confirm a diagnosis of EE.

A clinical diagnosis of GERD can be made if the presenting symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation, without chest pain or alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding. In this setting, once-daily PPIs are generally prescribed for 8 weeks to see if symptoms resolve. If symptoms have not resolved, a twice-daily PPI regimen may be prescribed. In patients who do not respond to PPIs, or for whom GERD returns after stopping therapy, an upper endoscopy with biopsy is recommended after 2-4 weeks off therapy to rule out other causes. Endoscopy should be the first step in diagnosis for individuals experiencing chest pain without heartburn; those in whom heart disease has been ruled out; individuals experiencing dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding; or those who have multiple risk factors for BE.

4. The most serious complication of EE is BE, which can lead to esophageal cancer.

Several complications can arise from EE. The most serious of these is BE, which can lead to esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE is characterized by the conversion of normal distal squamous esophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium. It has the potential to become malignant if it exhibits intestinal-type metaplasia. In the industrialized world, adenocarcinoma currently represents more than half of all esophageal cancers. The most common symptom of esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Other signs and symptoms include weight loss, hoarseness, chronic or intractable cough, bleeding, epigastric or retrosternal pain, frequent pneumonia, and, if metastatic, bone pain.

5. Lifestyle modifications can help control the symptoms of EE.

Guidelines recommend a number of lifestyle modification strategies to help control the symptoms of EE. Smoking cessation and weight loss are two evidence-based strategies for relieving symptoms of GERD and, ultimately, lowering the risk for esophageal cancer. One large prospective Norwegian cohort study (N = 29,610) found that stopping smoking improved GERD symptoms, but only in those with normal body mass index. In a smaller Japanese study (N = 191) specifically surveying people attempting smoking cessation, individuals who successfully stopped smoking had a 44% improvement in GERD symptoms at 1 year, vs an 18% improvement in those who continued to smoke, with no statistical difference between the success and failure groups based on patient body mass index (P = .60).

Other recommended strategies for nonpharmacologic management of EE symptoms include elevation of the head when lying down in bed and avoidance of lying down after eating, cessation of alcohol consumption, avoidance of food close to bedtime, and avoidance of trigger foods that can incite or worsen symptoms of acid reflux. Such trigger foods vary among individuals, but they often include fatty foods, coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, citrus fruits, and tomatoes.

Dr. Puerta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.