Last Month, the New England Journal of Medicine Published Two Major Papers by UB Department of Pediatrics Faculty

One of medicine’s highest impact journals published major papers by UB pediatrics faculty that will change the standard of care

BUFFALO, N.Y. – Getting a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is a career-crowning achievement for any medical researcher. This fall, within one week, it happened to two members of the Department of Pediatrics in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, both of whom also happen to be Jacobs School alumnae.

PHOTO: https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2022/12/013.html

While co-authoring a NEJM paper by itself signifies that the findings are groundbreaking, the papers by UB co-authors are having an even more powerful impact: each reported significant positive benefits from the intervention being studied.

“The fact that the New England Journal of Medicine published clinical trial results by two of our extraordinary physician-scientists and alumnae who happen to be in the same department unequivocally demonstrates that Jacobs School research is fundamentally transforming the standard of care,” said Allison Brashear, MD, vice president for health sciences at UB and dean of the Jacobs School. “Western New York parents enrolled their children in these studies, experiencing firsthand how our community benefits directly from UB clinical trials.

Teen weight loss

On Nov. 2, Lucy Mastrandrea, MD, PhD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology in the Department of Pediatrics in the Jacobs School and a physician with UBMD Pediatrics, was a co-author on the NEJM study that found that a weekly injection of the drug semaglutide plus lifestyle intervention resulted in a mean percent reduction body mass index (BMI) of 16.1% in teens.

This combination treatment resulted in a greater reduction in BMI than lifestyle intervention alone. About 40% of these adolescent patients attained normal weight. These semaglutide-treated patients also had improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors.

While the drug is widely used for diabetes control and weight loss in adults, it has yet to be approved for teens. The results were better than anything the participants or even the researchers had anticipated.

“This is a major advance,” said Steven Lipshultz, MD, A. Conger Goodyear Professor and Chair of Pediatrics in the Jacobs School and president of UBMD Pediatrics. “It’s groundbreaking and potentially life-changing because it suggests that sustained improvement in weight is more likely when you combine anti-obesity medication with lifestyle interventions. If you intervene in adolescence, you have a greater chance to break that obesity cycle.

“This gives hope to adolescents with obesity to be able to successfully adhere to recommendations for weight loss, achieve their goals, and improve their quality of life and overall health,” he continued. “With nearly one in five children globally affected by obesity, watchful waiting for teens to improve with lifestyle interventions alone is often not an acceptable option. Based on the results of this groundbreaking study, it is clear that this anti-obesity therapy in conjunction with lifestyle intervention will be a welcome addition to the current standard of care.”

Targeted cancer therapy for children

On Nov. 3, the NEJM published a paper that described how children with high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma responded to a targeted therapy for the disease that has been effective in adults.

Kara Kelly, MD, Division chief of Hematology/Oncology in the Department of Pediatrics in the Jacobs School and chair of the Roswell Park Oishei Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Program, was senior author on the study.

The trial — conducted by the National Cancer Institute-supported Children’s Oncology Group (COG) and led by pediatric oncologists at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University — found that the multiagent chemotherapy, including brentuximab vedotin, was shown to significantly reduce relapse rates when tested in a large multicenter clinical trial when compared to conventional multiagent chemotherapy that did not include brentuximab vedotin. In addition, in the brentuximab vedotin arm, there was a 59% lower risk of an event or death, and no increase in the incidence of toxic effects at 3 years.

Drug approval for pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma

Just a week later, Kelly and her co-authors got word that, based on the results of this trial, the FDA has now approved the pediatric usage of brentuximab vedotin for treating pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma, the first pediatric approval for this drug.

Lipshultz said such approvals are particularly noteworthy.

“When I was a voting member on the FDA Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee, it had approved about 20 new drugs for adults over the preceding 10 years,” he recalled. “But over those same years, only two new cancer drugs were approved for kids. For very obvious reasons, those approvals are much more difficult to get. That’s why having brentuximab vedotin being approved by the FDA for children with Hodgkin lymphoma is such a big deal.”

He concluded: “Journal papers very often get published that report observations but don’t have the potential to immediately change clinical care. But both of these are groundbreaking studies that can immediately change clinical management and care of children and adolescents if implemented. Each involved prospective clinical trials with randomization and the results of each trial can immediately change practice, ultimately leading to better health for children and adolescents.”

The post Last Month, the New England Journal of Medicine Published Two Major Papers by UB Department of Pediatrics Faculty appeared first on Buffalo Healthy Living Magazine.

Related articles

When To Accommodate, and When To Fight? NY Officials Agonize and Prepare for Federal Escalation

Jackie Bray has been thinking about how quickly things could spiral out of control. Bray is the New York state...

A reckoning awaits these out-of-touch lawmakers hopelessly in denial



Last month, some House members publicly acknowledged that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. It’s a judgment that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch unequivocally proclaimed a year ago. Israeli human-rights organizations have reached the same conclusion. But such clarity is sparse in Congress.

And no wonder. Genocide denial is needed for continuing to appropriate billions of dollars in weapons to Israel, as most legislators have kept doing. Congress members would find it very difficult to admit that Israeli forces are committing genocide while voting to send them more weaponry.

Three weeks ago, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) introduced a resolution titled “Recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza.” Twenty-one House colleagues, all of them Democrats, signed on as co-sponsors. They account for 10 percent of the Democrats in Congress.

In sharp contrast, a national Quinnipiac Poll found that 77 percent of Democrats “think Israel is committing genocide.” That means there is a 67 percent gap between what the elected Democrats are willing to say and what the people who elected them believe. The huge gap has big implications for the party’s primaries in the midterm elections next year, and then in the race for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.

One of the likely candidates in that race, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), is speaking out in ways that fit with the overwhelming views of Democratic voters.

“I agree with the UN commission's heartbreaking finding that there is a genocide in Gaza,” he tweeted as autumn began. “What matters is what we do about it – stop military sales that are being used to kill civilians and recognize a Palestinian state.”

Consistent with that position, the California congressman was one of the score of Democrats who signed on as co-sponsors of Tlaib’s resolution the day it was introduced.

In the past, signers of such a resolution would have reason to fear the wrath — and the electoral muscle — of AIPAC, the Israel-can-do-no-wrong lobby. But its intimidation power is waning. AIPAC’s support for Israel does not represent the views of the public, a reality that has begun to dawn on more Democratic officeholders.

“With American support for the Israeli government’s management of the conflict in Gaza undergoing a seismic reversal, and Democratic voters’ support for the Jewish state dropping off steeply, AIPAC is becoming an increasingly toxic brand for some Democrats on Capitol Hill,” the New York Times reported this fall. Notably, “some Democrats who once counted AIPAC among their top donors have in recent weeks refused to take the group’s donations.”

Khanna has become more and more willing to tangle with AIPAC, which is now paying for attack ads against him.

On Thanksgiving, he tweeted about Gaza and accused AIPAC of “asking people to disbelieve what they saw with their own eyes.” Khanna elaborated in a campaign email days ago, writing: “Any politician who caves to special interests on Gaza will never stand up to special interests on corruption, healthcare, housing, or the economy. If we can’t speak with moral clarity when thousands of children are dying, we won’t stand for working Americans when corporate power comes knocking.”

AIPAC isn’t the only well-heeled organization for Israel now struggling with diminished clout. Democratic Majority for Israel, an offshoot of AIPAC that calls itself “an American advocacy group that supports pro-Israel policies within the United States Democratic Party,” is now clearly misnamed. Every bit of recent polling shows that in the interests of accuracy, the organization should change its name to “Democratic Minority for Israel.”

Yet the party’s leadership remains stuck in a bygone era. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, typifies how disconnected so many party leaders are from the actual views of Democratic voters. Speaking in Brooklyn three months ago, she flatly claimed that “nine out of 10 Democrats are pro-Israel.” She did not attempt to explain how that could be true when more than seven out of 10 Democrats say Israel is guilty of genocide.

The political issue of complicity with genocide will not go away.

Last week, Amnesty International released a detailed statement documenting that “Israeli authorities are still committing genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, by continuing to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.” But in Congress, almost every Republican and a large majority of Democrats remain stuck in public denial about Israel’s genocidal policies.

Such denial will be put to the electoral test in Democratic primaries next year, when most incumbents will face an electorate far more morally attuned to Gaza than they are. What easily passes for reasoned judgment and political smarts in Congress will seem more like cluelessness to many Democratic activists and voters who can provide reality checks with their ballots.

Shaq Thompson: “Going To Be A Challenge” | Buffalo Bills

Linebacker Shaq Thompson addressed the media after...