Federal Practitioner

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For carefully selected patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), a liver transplant may offer long-term survival and potentially even cure unresectable liver metastases.

Findings from a Norwegian review of 61 patients who had liver transplants for unresectable colorectal liver metastases found half of patients were still alive at 5 years, and about one in five appeared to be cured at 10 years.

“It seems likely that there is a small group of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who should be considered for transplant, and long-term survival and possibly cure are achievable in these patients with appropriate selection,” Ryan Ellis, MD, and Michael D’Angelica, MD, wrote in a commentary published alongside the study in JAMA Surgery.

The core question, however, is how to identify patients who will benefit the most from a liver transplant, said Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica, both surgical oncologists in the Hepatopancreatobiliary Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Looking closely at who did well in this analysis can offer clues to appropriate patient selection, the editorialists said.

Three decades ago, the oncology community had largely abandoned liver transplant in this population after studies showed overall 5-year survival of less than 20%. Some patients, however, did better, which prompted the Norwegian investigators to attempt to refine patient selection.

In the current prospective nonrandomized study, 61 patients had liver transplants for unresectable metastases at Oslo University Hospital from 2006 to 2020.

The researchers reported a median overall survival of 60.3 months, with about half of patients (50.4%) alive at 5 years.

Most patients (78.3%) experienced a relapse after liver transplant, with a median time to relapse of 9 months and with most occurring within 2 years of transplant. Median overall survival from time of relapse was 37.1 months, with 5-year survival at nearly 35% in this group and with one patient still alive 156 months after relapse.

The remaining 21.7% of patients (n = 13) did not experience a relapse post-transplant at their last follow-up.

Given the variety of responses to liver transplant, how can experts differentiate patients who will benefit most from those who won’t?

The researchers looked at several factors, including Oslo score and Fong Clinical Risk Score. The Oslo score assesses overall survival among liver transplant patients, while the Fong score predicts recurrence risk for patients with CRC liver metastasis following resection. These scores assign one point for each adverse prognostic factor.

Among the 10 patients who had an Oslo Score of 0, median overall survival was 151.6 months, and the 5-year and 10-year survival rates reached nearly 89%. Among the 27 patients with an Oslo Score of 1, median overall survival was 60.3 months, and 5-year overall survival was 54.7%. No patients with an Oslo score of 4 lived for 5 years.

As for FCRS, median overall survival was 164.9 months among those with a score of 1, 90.5 months among those with a score of 2, 59.9 months for those with a score of 3, 32.8 months for those with a score of 4, and 25.3 months for those with the highest score of 5 (P < .001). Overall, these patients had 5-year overall survival of 100%, 63.9%, 49.4%, 33.3%, and 0%, respectively.

In addition to Oslo and Fong scores, metabolic tumor volume on PET scan (PET-MTV) was also a good prognostic factor for survival. Among the 40 patients with MTV values less than 70 cm³, median 5-year overall survival was nearly 67%, while those with values above 70 cm³ had a median 5-year overall survival of 23.3%.

Additional harbingers of low 5-year survival, in addition to higher Oslo and Fong scores and PET-MTV above 70 cm³, included a tumor size greater than 5.5 cm, progressive disease while receiving chemotherapy, primary tumors in the ascending colon, tumor burden scores of 9 or higher, and nine or more liver lesions.

Overall, the current analysis can help oncologists identify patients who may benefit from a liver transplant.

The findings indicate that “patients with liver-only metastases and favorable pretransplant prognostic scoring [have] long-term survival comparable with conventional indications for liver transplant, thus providing a potential curative treatment option in patients otherwise offered only palliative care,” said investigators led by Svein Dueland, MD, PhD, a member of the Transplant Oncology Research Group at Oslo University Hospital.

Perhaps “the most compelling argument in favor of liver transplant lies in the likely curative potential evidenced by the 13 disease-free patients,” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

But even some patients who had early recurrences did well following transplant. The investigators noted that early recurrences in this population aren’t as dire as in other settings because they generally manifest as slow growing lung metastases that can be caught early and resected with curative intent.

A major hurdle to broader use of liver transplants in this population is the scarcity of donor grafts. To manage demand, the investigators suggested “extended-criteria donor grafts” – grafts that don’t meet ideal criteria – and the use of the RAPID technique for liver transplant, which opens the door to using one graft for two patients and using living donors with low risk to the donor.

Another challenge will be identifying patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who may experience long-term survival following transplant and possibly a cure. “We all will need to keep a sharp eye out for these patients – they might be hard to find!” Dr. Ellis and Dr. D’Angelica wrote.

The study was supported by Oslo University Hospital, the Norwegian Cancer Society, and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Even at an advanced age, superagers have the memory of someone 20 or 30 years their junior. But why is that? A new study shows that, in superagers, age-related atrophy of the gray matter, especially in the areas responsible for memory, develops much more slowly than in normal older adults. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of physical and mental fitness for a healthy aging process.

“One of the most important unanswered questions with regard to superagers is: ‘Are they resistant to age-related memory loss, or do they have coping mechanisms that allow them to better offset this memory loss?’ ” wrote Marta Garo-Pascual, a PhD candidate at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, and colleagues in the Lancet Healthy Longevity. “Our results indicate that superagers are resistant to these processes.”
 

Six years’ monitoring

From a cohort of older adults who had participated in a study aiming to identify early indicators of Alzheimer’s disease, the research group chose 64 superagers and 55 normal senior citizens. The latter served as the control group. While the superagers performed just as well in a memory test as people 30 years their junior, the control group’s performance was in line with their age and level of education.

All study participants were over age 79 years. Both the group of superagers and the control group included more females than males. On average, they were monitored for 6 years. During this period, a checkup was scheduled annually with an MRI examination, clinical tests, blood tests, and documentation of lifestyle factors.

For Alessandro Cellerino, PhD, of the Leibniz Institute on Aging–Fritz Lipmann Institute in Jena, Germany, this is the most crucial aspect of the study. “Even before this study, we knew that superagers demonstrated less atrophy in certain areas of the brain, but this was always only ever based on a single measurement.”
 

Memory centers protected

The MRI examinations confirmed that in superagers, gray matter atrophy in the regions responsible for memory (such as the medial temporal lobe and cholinergic forebrain), as well in regions important for movement (such as the motor thalamus), was less pronounced. In addition, the volume of gray matter in these regions, especially in the medial temporal lobe, decreased much more slowly in the superagers than in the control subjects over the study period.

Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates used a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between superagers and normal older adults. From the 89 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors entered into the algorithm, two were the most important for the classification: the ability to move and mental health.
 

Mobility and mental health

Clinical tests such as the Timed Up-and-Go Test and the Finger Tapping Test revealed that superagers can be distinguished from the normally aging control subjects with regard to their mobility and fine motor skills. Their physical condition was better, although they, by their own admission, did not move any more than the control subjects in day-to-day life. According to Dr. Cellerino, this finding confirms that physical activity is paramount for cognitive function. “These people were over 80 years old – the fact that there was not much difference between their levels of activity is not surprising. Much more relevant is the question of how you get there – i.e., how active you are at the ages of 40, 50 or even 60 years old.”

Remaining active is important

As a matter of fact, the superagers indicated that generally they had been more active than the control subjects during their middle years. “Attempting to stay physically fit is essential; even if it just means going for a walk or taking the stairs,” said Dr. Cellerino.

On average, the superagers also fared much better in tests on physical health than the control subjects. They suffered significantly less from depression or anxiety disorders. “Earlier studies suggest that depression and anxiety disorders may influence performance in memory tests across all ages and that they are risk factors for developing dementia,” said Dr. Cellerino.

To avoid mental health issues in later life, gerontologist Dr. Cellerino recommended remaining socially engaged and involved. “Depression and anxiety are commonly also a consequence of social isolation,” he said.
 

Potential genetic differences

Blood sample analyses demonstrated that the superagers exhibited lower concentrations of biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases than the control group did. In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in the prevalence of the apo e4 allele, one of the most important genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates assume that genetics also play a role. They found that, despite 89 variables employed, the algorithm used could only distinguish superagers from normal older adults 66% of the time. This suggests that additional factors must be in play, such as genetic differences.

Body and mind

Since this is an observational study, whether the determined factors have a direct effect on superaging cannot be ascertained, the authors wrote. However, the results are consistent with earlier findings.

“Regarding the management of old age, we actually haven’t learned anything more than what we already knew. But it does confirm that physical and mental function are closely entwined and that we must maintain both to age healthily,” Dr. Cellerino concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Even at an advanced age, superagers have the memory of someone 20 or 30 years their junior. But why is that? A new study shows that, in superagers, age-related atrophy of the gray matter, especially in the areas responsible for memory, develops much more slowly than in normal older adults. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of physical and mental fitness for a healthy aging process.

“One of the most important unanswered questions with regard to superagers is: ‘Are they resistant to age-related memory loss, or do they have coping mechanisms that allow them to better offset this memory loss?’ ” wrote Marta Garo-Pascual, a PhD candidate at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, and colleagues in the Lancet Healthy Longevity. “Our results indicate that superagers are resistant to these processes.”
 

Six years’ monitoring

From a cohort of older adults who had participated in a study aiming to identify early indicators of Alzheimer’s disease, the research group chose 64 superagers and 55 normal senior citizens. The latter served as the control group. While the superagers performed just as well in a memory test as people 30 years their junior, the control group’s performance was in line with their age and level of education.

All study participants were over age 79 years. Both the group of superagers and the control group included more females than males. On average, they were monitored for 6 years. During this period, a checkup was scheduled annually with an MRI examination, clinical tests, blood tests, and documentation of lifestyle factors.

For Alessandro Cellerino, PhD, of the Leibniz Institute on Aging–Fritz Lipmann Institute in Jena, Germany, this is the most crucial aspect of the study. “Even before this study, we knew that superagers demonstrated less atrophy in certain areas of the brain, but this was always only ever based on a single measurement.”
 

Memory centers protected

The MRI examinations confirmed that in superagers, gray matter atrophy in the regions responsible for memory (such as the medial temporal lobe and cholinergic forebrain), as well in regions important for movement (such as the motor thalamus), was less pronounced. In addition, the volume of gray matter in these regions, especially in the medial temporal lobe, decreased much more slowly in the superagers than in the control subjects over the study period.

Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates used a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between superagers and normal older adults. From the 89 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors entered into the algorithm, two were the most important for the classification: the ability to move and mental health.
 

Mobility and mental health

Clinical tests such as the Timed Up-and-Go Test and the Finger Tapping Test revealed that superagers can be distinguished from the normally aging control subjects with regard to their mobility and fine motor skills. Their physical condition was better, although they, by their own admission, did not move any more than the control subjects in day-to-day life. According to Dr. Cellerino, this finding confirms that physical activity is paramount for cognitive function. “These people were over 80 years old – the fact that there was not much difference between their levels of activity is not surprising. Much more relevant is the question of how you get there – i.e., how active you are at the ages of 40, 50 or even 60 years old.”

Remaining active is important

As a matter of fact, the superagers indicated that generally they had been more active than the control subjects during their middle years. “Attempting to stay physically fit is essential; even if it just means going for a walk or taking the stairs,” said Dr. Cellerino.

On average, the superagers also fared much better in tests on physical health than the control subjects. They suffered significantly less from depression or anxiety disorders. “Earlier studies suggest that depression and anxiety disorders may influence performance in memory tests across all ages and that they are risk factors for developing dementia,” said Dr. Cellerino.

To avoid mental health issues in later life, gerontologist Dr. Cellerino recommended remaining socially engaged and involved. “Depression and anxiety are commonly also a consequence of social isolation,” he said.
 

Potential genetic differences

Blood sample analyses demonstrated that the superagers exhibited lower concentrations of biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases than the control group did. In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in the prevalence of the apo e4 allele, one of the most important genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates assume that genetics also play a role. They found that, despite 89 variables employed, the algorithm used could only distinguish superagers from normal older adults 66% of the time. This suggests that additional factors must be in play, such as genetic differences.

Body and mind

Since this is an observational study, whether the determined factors have a direct effect on superaging cannot be ascertained, the authors wrote. However, the results are consistent with earlier findings.

“Regarding the management of old age, we actually haven’t learned anything more than what we already knew. But it does confirm that physical and mental function are closely entwined and that we must maintain both to age healthily,” Dr. Cellerino concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Even at an advanced age, superagers have the memory of someone 20 or 30 years their junior. But why is that? A new study shows that, in superagers, age-related atrophy of the gray matter, especially in the areas responsible for memory, develops much more slowly than in normal older adults. However, the study also emphasizes the importance of physical and mental fitness for a healthy aging process.

“One of the most important unanswered questions with regard to superagers is: ‘Are they resistant to age-related memory loss, or do they have coping mechanisms that allow them to better offset this memory loss?’ ” wrote Marta Garo-Pascual, a PhD candidate at the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, and colleagues in the Lancet Healthy Longevity. “Our results indicate that superagers are resistant to these processes.”
 

Six years’ monitoring

From a cohort of older adults who had participated in a study aiming to identify early indicators of Alzheimer’s disease, the research group chose 64 superagers and 55 normal senior citizens. The latter served as the control group. While the superagers performed just as well in a memory test as people 30 years their junior, the control group’s performance was in line with their age and level of education.

All study participants were over age 79 years. Both the group of superagers and the control group included more females than males. On average, they were monitored for 6 years. During this period, a checkup was scheduled annually with an MRI examination, clinical tests, blood tests, and documentation of lifestyle factors.

For Alessandro Cellerino, PhD, of the Leibniz Institute on Aging–Fritz Lipmann Institute in Jena, Germany, this is the most crucial aspect of the study. “Even before this study, we knew that superagers demonstrated less atrophy in certain areas of the brain, but this was always only ever based on a single measurement.”
 

Memory centers protected

The MRI examinations confirmed that in superagers, gray matter atrophy in the regions responsible for memory (such as the medial temporal lobe and cholinergic forebrain), as well in regions important for movement (such as the motor thalamus), was less pronounced. In addition, the volume of gray matter in these regions, especially in the medial temporal lobe, decreased much more slowly in the superagers than in the control subjects over the study period.

Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates used a machine-learning algorithm to differentiate between superagers and normal older adults. From the 89 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors entered into the algorithm, two were the most important for the classification: the ability to move and mental health.
 

Mobility and mental health

Clinical tests such as the Timed Up-and-Go Test and the Finger Tapping Test revealed that superagers can be distinguished from the normally aging control subjects with regard to their mobility and fine motor skills. Their physical condition was better, although they, by their own admission, did not move any more than the control subjects in day-to-day life. According to Dr. Cellerino, this finding confirms that physical activity is paramount for cognitive function. “These people were over 80 years old – the fact that there was not much difference between their levels of activity is not surprising. Much more relevant is the question of how you get there – i.e., how active you are at the ages of 40, 50 or even 60 years old.”

Remaining active is important

As a matter of fact, the superagers indicated that generally they had been more active than the control subjects during their middle years. “Attempting to stay physically fit is essential; even if it just means going for a walk or taking the stairs,” said Dr. Cellerino.

On average, the superagers also fared much better in tests on physical health than the control subjects. They suffered significantly less from depression or anxiety disorders. “Earlier studies suggest that depression and anxiety disorders may influence performance in memory tests across all ages and that they are risk factors for developing dementia,” said Dr. Cellerino.

To avoid mental health issues in later life, gerontologist Dr. Cellerino recommended remaining socially engaged and involved. “Depression and anxiety are commonly also a consequence of social isolation,” he said.
 

Potential genetic differences

Blood sample analyses demonstrated that the superagers exhibited lower concentrations of biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases than the control group did. In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in the prevalence of the apo e4 allele, one of the most important genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Nevertheless, Ms. Garo-Pascual and associates assume that genetics also play a role. They found that, despite 89 variables employed, the algorithm used could only distinguish superagers from normal older adults 66% of the time. This suggests that additional factors must be in play, such as genetic differences.

Body and mind

Since this is an observational study, whether the determined factors have a direct effect on superaging cannot be ascertained, the authors wrote. However, the results are consistent with earlier findings.

“Regarding the management of old age, we actually haven’t learned anything more than what we already knew. But it does confirm that physical and mental function are closely entwined and that we must maintain both to age healthily,” Dr. Cellerino concluded.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Ethylene oxide is a compound used to sterilize more than 20 billion devices sold in the U.S. every year. Although this sterilization process helps keep medical devices – and patients – safe, the odorless, flammable gas may also be harming people who live near sterilization plants and who may inhale the compound, which has been linked to an elevated risk of cancer.

Regulatory agencies are currently feuding over the best way to address the dilemma: preserving patient safety versus protecting public health. Lawmakers are weighing in on the matter, which has been the source of multiple civil lawsuits filed by individuals who say they have suffered health problems as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree that use of the compound should be limited, but they are at odds about how quickly limits should be put in place, according to Axios.

A new commercial standard for ethylene oxide proposed by the EPA in April would impose stricter emission restrictions for sterilization facilities and chemical plants – a move that would cut ethylene oxide emissions by 80%, the EPA estimates.

While the FDA says it “shares concerns about the release of ethylene oxide at unsafe levels into the environment,” the agency cautions that moving too fast to cut emissions would disrupt the medical supply chain, which is already experiencing turbulence. The U.S. has been facing the worst drug supply shortages in a decade in addition to severe medical device shortages.

Currently, other methods of sterilization cannot replace the use of ethylene oxide for many devices. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize about half of all medical devices in the U.S., the FDA says. Given the country’s reliance on this compound for sterilization, the FDA says it is “equally concerned about the potential impact of shortages of sterilized medical devices that would result from disruptions in commercial sterilizer facility operations.”

In 2019, Illinois temporarily closed a sterilization facility over concern regarding ethylene oxide emissions. The closure caused a shortage of a pediatric breathing tube.

Some lawmakers agree that an Interior-Environment bill would require FDA certification that any action by the EPA would not cause a medical device shortage.

The FDA has been working to identify safe alternatives to ethylene oxide for sterilizing medical supplies as well as strategies to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by capturing the gas or by turning it into a harmless byproduct. In 2019, the FDA launched a pilot program to incentivize companies to develop new sterilization technologies.

“The FDA remains focused in our commitment to encourage novel ways to sterilize medical devices while reducing adverse impacts on the environment and public health and developing solutions to avoid potential shortages of devices that the American public relies upon,” the agency said.

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

Ethylene oxide is a compound used to sterilize more than 20 billion devices sold in the U.S. every year. Although this sterilization process helps keep medical devices – and patients – safe, the odorless, flammable gas may also be harming people who live near sterilization plants and who may inhale the compound, which has been linked to an elevated risk of cancer.

Regulatory agencies are currently feuding over the best way to address the dilemma: preserving patient safety versus protecting public health. Lawmakers are weighing in on the matter, which has been the source of multiple civil lawsuits filed by individuals who say they have suffered health problems as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree that use of the compound should be limited, but they are at odds about how quickly limits should be put in place, according to Axios.

A new commercial standard for ethylene oxide proposed by the EPA in April would impose stricter emission restrictions for sterilization facilities and chemical plants – a move that would cut ethylene oxide emissions by 80%, the EPA estimates.

While the FDA says it “shares concerns about the release of ethylene oxide at unsafe levels into the environment,” the agency cautions that moving too fast to cut emissions would disrupt the medical supply chain, which is already experiencing turbulence. The U.S. has been facing the worst drug supply shortages in a decade in addition to severe medical device shortages.

Currently, other methods of sterilization cannot replace the use of ethylene oxide for many devices. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize about half of all medical devices in the U.S., the FDA says. Given the country’s reliance on this compound for sterilization, the FDA says it is “equally concerned about the potential impact of shortages of sterilized medical devices that would result from disruptions in commercial sterilizer facility operations.”

In 2019, Illinois temporarily closed a sterilization facility over concern regarding ethylene oxide emissions. The closure caused a shortage of a pediatric breathing tube.

Some lawmakers agree that an Interior-Environment bill would require FDA certification that any action by the EPA would not cause a medical device shortage.

The FDA has been working to identify safe alternatives to ethylene oxide for sterilizing medical supplies as well as strategies to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by capturing the gas or by turning it into a harmless byproduct. In 2019, the FDA launched a pilot program to incentivize companies to develop new sterilization technologies.

“The FDA remains focused in our commitment to encourage novel ways to sterilize medical devices while reducing adverse impacts on the environment and public health and developing solutions to avoid potential shortages of devices that the American public relies upon,” the agency said.

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

Ethylene oxide is a compound used to sterilize more than 20 billion devices sold in the U.S. every year. Although this sterilization process helps keep medical devices – and patients – safe, the odorless, flammable gas may also be harming people who live near sterilization plants and who may inhale the compound, which has been linked to an elevated risk of cancer.

Regulatory agencies are currently feuding over the best way to address the dilemma: preserving patient safety versus protecting public health. Lawmakers are weighing in on the matter, which has been the source of multiple civil lawsuits filed by individuals who say they have suffered health problems as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agree that use of the compound should be limited, but they are at odds about how quickly limits should be put in place, according to Axios.

A new commercial standard for ethylene oxide proposed by the EPA in April would impose stricter emission restrictions for sterilization facilities and chemical plants – a move that would cut ethylene oxide emissions by 80%, the EPA estimates.

While the FDA says it “shares concerns about the release of ethylene oxide at unsafe levels into the environment,” the agency cautions that moving too fast to cut emissions would disrupt the medical supply chain, which is already experiencing turbulence. The U.S. has been facing the worst drug supply shortages in a decade in addition to severe medical device shortages.

Currently, other methods of sterilization cannot replace the use of ethylene oxide for many devices. Ethylene oxide is used to sterilize about half of all medical devices in the U.S., the FDA says. Given the country’s reliance on this compound for sterilization, the FDA says it is “equally concerned about the potential impact of shortages of sterilized medical devices that would result from disruptions in commercial sterilizer facility operations.”

In 2019, Illinois temporarily closed a sterilization facility over concern regarding ethylene oxide emissions. The closure caused a shortage of a pediatric breathing tube.

Some lawmakers agree that an Interior-Environment bill would require FDA certification that any action by the EPA would not cause a medical device shortage.

The FDA has been working to identify safe alternatives to ethylene oxide for sterilizing medical supplies as well as strategies to reduce emissions of ethylene oxide by capturing the gas or by turning it into a harmless byproduct. In 2019, the FDA launched a pilot program to incentivize companies to develop new sterilization technologies.

“The FDA remains focused in our commitment to encourage novel ways to sterilize medical devices while reducing adverse impacts on the environment and public health and developing solutions to avoid potential shortages of devices that the American public relies upon,” the agency said.

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

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but many trials are now recruiting patients from those populations. Some trials explicitly recruit patients seeking care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, and Indian Health Service. The VA Office of Research and Development alone supported > 7260 research projects in 2022, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 20, 2023; have at least 1 VA or DoD location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for lymphoma, leukemia, and esophageal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lymphoma

Study of a Triple Combination Therapy, DTRM-555, in Patients With R/R CLL or R/R Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

Targeted drug therapies have greatly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, single drug therapies have limitations, therefore, the current study is evaluating a novel oral combination of targeted drugs as a way of overcoming these limitations. This study will determine the efficacy of the triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, in patients with R/R CLL or R/R non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

ID: NCT04305444

Sponsor: Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma

Locations: 8 locations, including Memphis VA Medical Center

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Oral Azacytidine Plus Romidepsin Versus Investigator’s Choice in PTCL (PTCL)

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a rare and heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) originating from mature (or post-thymic or ‘peripheral’) T-lymphocytes and NK cells. They are considered very aggressive and are often resistant to conventional chemotherapy.

This study employs a stratified randomization with equal allocation within strata of patients to receive oral 5-azacytidine (AZA) plus romidepsin (ROMI) versus prespecified investigator choice (ROMI, belinostat, pralatrexate or gemcitabine), for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL. The dose and schedule of AZA/ROMI has been determined from a phase I clinical trial of the combination. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) among patients receiving the combination compared to single agent of choice.

ID: NCT04747236

Sponsor: Collaborator: University of Virginia; Celgene

Locations: 4 locations, including VA Long Beach Health Care System

Connect® Lymphoma Disease Registry: A US-Based Prospective Observational Cohort Study

This Disease Registry is designed to capture the patient characteristics, practice patterns, and therapeutic strategies evaluated in community and academic centers when treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). The data collected in this Registry will facilitate the evaluation of the current treatment landscape for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including the clinical effectiveness, safety. No investigational product or drug will be administered as part of this study. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including any previous lymphoma treatments. Clinical outcomes will be documented as part of an objective clinical assessment. In addition, patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes data will be collected from patients using various validated instruments. Social support data will also be collected.

ID: NCT04982471

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 60 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital, and Brooke Army Medical Center

Obinutuzumab With or Without Umbralisib,Lenalidomide, or Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Grade I-IIIa Follicular Lymphoma

This phase II trial studies how well obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy work in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma that has come back (relapsed) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with obinutuzumab, may induce changes in the body’s immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Umbralisib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Biological therapies, such as lenalidomide, use substances made from living organisms that may stimulate or suppress the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Chemotherapy drugs, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and bendamustine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy will work better in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma.

ID: NCT03269669

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 427 locations, including VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Brentuximab Vedotin and Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and best dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab when given together with brentuximab vedotin, and how well they work in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma that has returned after a period of improvement (recurrent) or has not responded to previous treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer and may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. Brentuximab vedotin is a monoclonal antibody, brentuximab, linked to a toxic agent called vedotin. Brentuximab attaches to CD30-positive cancer cells in a targeted way and delivers vedotin to kill them. It is not known whether giving brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab may kill more cancer cells.

ID: NCT01896999

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 486 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

 

 

Leukemia

Testing Early Treatment for Patients With High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL), EVOLVE CLL/SLL Study

This phase III trial compares early treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab versus delayed treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Venetoclax is in a class of medications called B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) inhibitors. It may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking BCL-2, a protein needed for cancer cell survival. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as obinutuzumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab early (before patients have symptoms) may have better outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma compared to starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab after patients show symptoms.

ID: NCT04269902

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 545 locations, Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and Durham VA Medical Center

Testing the Use of Steroids and TyrosineKinase Inhibitors With Blinatumomab or Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed BCR-ABL-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults

This phase III trial compares the effect of usual treatment of chemotherapy and steroids and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to the same treatment plus blinatumomab. Blinatumomab is a Bi-specific T-cell Engager (‘BiTE’) that may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. The information gained from this study may help researchers determine if combination therapy with steroids, TKIs, and blinatumomab work better than the standard of care.

ID: NCT04530565

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 180 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Asciminib Monotherapy, With Dose Escalation, for 2nd and 1st Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (ASC2ESCALATE)

This will be a multicenter Phase II open-label study of asciminib in CML-CP patients who have been previously treated with one prior ATP-binding site TKI with discontinuation due to treatment failure, warning or intolerance. (2L patient cohort). In addition, newly diagnosed CML-CP patients who may have received up to 4 weeks of prior TKI are included in a separate 1L patient cohort.

ID: NCT05384587

Sponsor: Novartis

Locations: 26 locations, including VA Puget Sound Health Care System

Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry

This Disease Registry will collect data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. The objective is to describe how patients with myeloid diseases are treated; and to build a knowledge base regarding the effectiveness and safety of first-line and subsequent treatment regimens in both community and academic settings. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including initial treatment and any subsequent therapy. Data on treatment outcomes, including response rates as measured by the treating physician, evidence of progression, survival, and patient-reported outcomes will be collected quarterly on the electronic CRF.

ID: NCT01688011

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 240 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Manchester VA Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center, White River Junction VA Medical Center, and VA Caribbean Healthcare System

Esophageal Cancer

Non-endoscopic Esophageal Sampling to Detect Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer in Veterans

This study seeks to incorporate non-endoscopic detection method (Esocheck/Esoguard) in primary care practice and test whether this screening modality increases the positive predictive value of upper endoscopy and increases the detection of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Currently, BE is diagnosed only when patients undergo endoscopy with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, due to the high cost of EGD and the lack of a randomized controlled trials supporting its efficacy, endoscopy to screen for BE is not routinely recommended. Current guidelines do recommend sedated EGD in patients with multiple BE risk factors, refractory GERD, or alarm symptoms. This strategy fails to detect BE in patients whose symptoms are well controlled with either over the counter medications or physician prescribed therapies. It also fails to detect BE in asymptomatic subjects who comprise 40% of those that develop EAC. Thus, < 10% of EACs are diagnosed as early stage lesions caught by surveillance of patients with previously detected BE. Ablative nonsurgical therapies that have been developed for preventing cancer in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia over the past decade will have little impact and the 5-year survival for EACs will remain a dismal 18% unless more effective programs for identifying BE and early EAC are developed.

Esocheck/Esoguard is a FDA approved device designed to sample the distal esophagus and analyze the collected material for presence of two methylated DNA markers. The Specific Aims of this study are:

To determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Esocheck/Esoguard performed in routine practice for detecting BE in an at risk Veteran population

To compare the yield of detected BE using EGD alone vs. stepwise molecular diagnostics(Esocheck/Esoguard) and endoscopic screening strategy (EGD) in at risk Veteran population.

ID: NCT05210049

Sponsor: Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation

Location: Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center

Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus and the Creation of a Barrett’s Registry

The purpose of this study is to determine or evaluate the risk factors such as smoking, family history etc. that cause esophageal cancer and to determine the genetic changes that lead to esophageal cancer. The investigators hypothesis is that systematic collection of data on the natural history of GERD and BE patients and risk factors for development of BE in patients with chronic GERD and progression of BE to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma will provide useful information to develop a decision model for risk stratification and risk reduction strategies in these patients.

ID: NCT00574327

Sponsor: Midwest Biomedical Research Foundation

Location: Kansas City VA Medical Center

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but many trials are now recruiting patients from those populations. Some trials explicitly recruit patients seeking care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, and Indian Health Service. The VA Office of Research and Development alone supported > 7260 research projects in 2022, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 20, 2023; have at least 1 VA or DoD location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for lymphoma, leukemia, and esophageal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lymphoma

Study of a Triple Combination Therapy, DTRM-555, in Patients With R/R CLL or R/R Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

Targeted drug therapies have greatly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, single drug therapies have limitations, therefore, the current study is evaluating a novel oral combination of targeted drugs as a way of overcoming these limitations. This study will determine the efficacy of the triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, in patients with R/R CLL or R/R non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

ID: NCT04305444

Sponsor: Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma

Locations: 8 locations, including Memphis VA Medical Center

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Oral Azacytidine Plus Romidepsin Versus Investigator’s Choice in PTCL (PTCL)

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a rare and heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) originating from mature (or post-thymic or ‘peripheral’) T-lymphocytes and NK cells. They are considered very aggressive and are often resistant to conventional chemotherapy.

This study employs a stratified randomization with equal allocation within strata of patients to receive oral 5-azacytidine (AZA) plus romidepsin (ROMI) versus prespecified investigator choice (ROMI, belinostat, pralatrexate or gemcitabine), for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL. The dose and schedule of AZA/ROMI has been determined from a phase I clinical trial of the combination. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) among patients receiving the combination compared to single agent of choice.

ID: NCT04747236

Sponsor: Collaborator: University of Virginia; Celgene

Locations: 4 locations, including VA Long Beach Health Care System

Connect® Lymphoma Disease Registry: A US-Based Prospective Observational Cohort Study

This Disease Registry is designed to capture the patient characteristics, practice patterns, and therapeutic strategies evaluated in community and academic centers when treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). The data collected in this Registry will facilitate the evaluation of the current treatment landscape for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including the clinical effectiveness, safety. No investigational product or drug will be administered as part of this study. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including any previous lymphoma treatments. Clinical outcomes will be documented as part of an objective clinical assessment. In addition, patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes data will be collected from patients using various validated instruments. Social support data will also be collected.

ID: NCT04982471

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 60 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital, and Brooke Army Medical Center

Obinutuzumab With or Without Umbralisib,Lenalidomide, or Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Grade I-IIIa Follicular Lymphoma

This phase II trial studies how well obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy work in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma that has come back (relapsed) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with obinutuzumab, may induce changes in the body’s immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Umbralisib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Biological therapies, such as lenalidomide, use substances made from living organisms that may stimulate or suppress the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Chemotherapy drugs, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and bendamustine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy will work better in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma.

ID: NCT03269669

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 427 locations, including VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Brentuximab Vedotin and Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and best dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab when given together with brentuximab vedotin, and how well they work in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma that has returned after a period of improvement (recurrent) or has not responded to previous treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer and may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. Brentuximab vedotin is a monoclonal antibody, brentuximab, linked to a toxic agent called vedotin. Brentuximab attaches to CD30-positive cancer cells in a targeted way and delivers vedotin to kill them. It is not known whether giving brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab may kill more cancer cells.

ID: NCT01896999

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 486 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

 

 

Leukemia

Testing Early Treatment for Patients With High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL), EVOLVE CLL/SLL Study

This phase III trial compares early treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab versus delayed treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Venetoclax is in a class of medications called B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) inhibitors. It may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking BCL-2, a protein needed for cancer cell survival. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as obinutuzumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab early (before patients have symptoms) may have better outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma compared to starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab after patients show symptoms.

ID: NCT04269902

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 545 locations, Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and Durham VA Medical Center

Testing the Use of Steroids and TyrosineKinase Inhibitors With Blinatumomab or Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed BCR-ABL-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults

This phase III trial compares the effect of usual treatment of chemotherapy and steroids and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to the same treatment plus blinatumomab. Blinatumomab is a Bi-specific T-cell Engager (‘BiTE’) that may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. The information gained from this study may help researchers determine if combination therapy with steroids, TKIs, and blinatumomab work better than the standard of care.

ID: NCT04530565

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 180 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Asciminib Monotherapy, With Dose Escalation, for 2nd and 1st Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (ASC2ESCALATE)

This will be a multicenter Phase II open-label study of asciminib in CML-CP patients who have been previously treated with one prior ATP-binding site TKI with discontinuation due to treatment failure, warning or intolerance. (2L patient cohort). In addition, newly diagnosed CML-CP patients who may have received up to 4 weeks of prior TKI are included in a separate 1L patient cohort.

ID: NCT05384587

Sponsor: Novartis

Locations: 26 locations, including VA Puget Sound Health Care System

Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry

This Disease Registry will collect data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. The objective is to describe how patients with myeloid diseases are treated; and to build a knowledge base regarding the effectiveness and safety of first-line and subsequent treatment regimens in both community and academic settings. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including initial treatment and any subsequent therapy. Data on treatment outcomes, including response rates as measured by the treating physician, evidence of progression, survival, and patient-reported outcomes will be collected quarterly on the electronic CRF.

ID: NCT01688011

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 240 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Manchester VA Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center, White River Junction VA Medical Center, and VA Caribbean Healthcare System

Esophageal Cancer

Non-endoscopic Esophageal Sampling to Detect Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer in Veterans

This study seeks to incorporate non-endoscopic detection method (Esocheck/Esoguard) in primary care practice and test whether this screening modality increases the positive predictive value of upper endoscopy and increases the detection of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Currently, BE is diagnosed only when patients undergo endoscopy with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, due to the high cost of EGD and the lack of a randomized controlled trials supporting its efficacy, endoscopy to screen for BE is not routinely recommended. Current guidelines do recommend sedated EGD in patients with multiple BE risk factors, refractory GERD, or alarm symptoms. This strategy fails to detect BE in patients whose symptoms are well controlled with either over the counter medications or physician prescribed therapies. It also fails to detect BE in asymptomatic subjects who comprise 40% of those that develop EAC. Thus, < 10% of EACs are diagnosed as early stage lesions caught by surveillance of patients with previously detected BE. Ablative nonsurgical therapies that have been developed for preventing cancer in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia over the past decade will have little impact and the 5-year survival for EACs will remain a dismal 18% unless more effective programs for identifying BE and early EAC are developed.

Esocheck/Esoguard is a FDA approved device designed to sample the distal esophagus and analyze the collected material for presence of two methylated DNA markers. The Specific Aims of this study are:

To determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Esocheck/Esoguard performed in routine practice for detecting BE in an at risk Veteran population

To compare the yield of detected BE using EGD alone vs. stepwise molecular diagnostics(Esocheck/Esoguard) and endoscopic screening strategy (EGD) in at risk Veteran population.

ID: NCT05210049

Sponsor: Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation

Location: Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center

Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus and the Creation of a Barrett’s Registry

The purpose of this study is to determine or evaluate the risk factors such as smoking, family history etc. that cause esophageal cancer and to determine the genetic changes that lead to esophageal cancer. The investigators hypothesis is that systematic collection of data on the natural history of GERD and BE patients and risk factors for development of BE in patients with chronic GERD and progression of BE to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma will provide useful information to develop a decision model for risk stratification and risk reduction strategies in these patients.

ID: NCT00574327

Sponsor: Midwest Biomedical Research Foundation

Location: Kansas City VA Medical Center

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but many trials are now recruiting patients from those populations. Some trials explicitly recruit patients seeking care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, and Indian Health Service. The VA Office of Research and Development alone supported > 7260 research projects in 2022, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 20, 2023; have at least 1 VA or DoD location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for lymphoma, leukemia, and esophageal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lymphoma

Study of a Triple Combination Therapy, DTRM-555, in Patients With R/R CLL or R/R Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

Targeted drug therapies have greatly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, single drug therapies have limitations, therefore, the current study is evaluating a novel oral combination of targeted drugs as a way of overcoming these limitations. This study will determine the efficacy of the triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, in patients with R/R CLL or R/R non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

ID: NCT04305444

Sponsor: Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma

Locations: 8 locations, including Memphis VA Medical Center

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Oral Azacytidine Plus Romidepsin Versus Investigator’s Choice in PTCL (PTCL)

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a rare and heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) originating from mature (or post-thymic or ‘peripheral’) T-lymphocytes and NK cells. They are considered very aggressive and are often resistant to conventional chemotherapy.

This study employs a stratified randomization with equal allocation within strata of patients to receive oral 5-azacytidine (AZA) plus romidepsin (ROMI) versus prespecified investigator choice (ROMI, belinostat, pralatrexate or gemcitabine), for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL. The dose and schedule of AZA/ROMI has been determined from a phase I clinical trial of the combination. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) among patients receiving the combination compared to single agent of choice.

ID: NCT04747236

Sponsor: Collaborator: University of Virginia; Celgene

Locations: 4 locations, including VA Long Beach Health Care System

Connect® Lymphoma Disease Registry: A US-Based Prospective Observational Cohort Study

This Disease Registry is designed to capture the patient characteristics, practice patterns, and therapeutic strategies evaluated in community and academic centers when treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). The data collected in this Registry will facilitate the evaluation of the current treatment landscape for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including the clinical effectiveness, safety. No investigational product or drug will be administered as part of this study. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including any previous lymphoma treatments. Clinical outcomes will be documented as part of an objective clinical assessment. In addition, patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes data will be collected from patients using various validated instruments. Social support data will also be collected.

ID: NCT04982471

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 60 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital, and Brooke Army Medical Center

Obinutuzumab With or Without Umbralisib,Lenalidomide, or Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Grade I-IIIa Follicular Lymphoma

This phase II trial studies how well obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy work in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma that has come back (relapsed) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with obinutuzumab, may induce changes in the body’s immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Umbralisib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Biological therapies, such as lenalidomide, use substances made from living organisms that may stimulate or suppress the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Chemotherapy drugs, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and bendamustine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy will work better in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma.

ID: NCT03269669

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 427 locations, including VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Brentuximab Vedotin and Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and best dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab when given together with brentuximab vedotin, and how well they work in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma that has returned after a period of improvement (recurrent) or has not responded to previous treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer and may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. Brentuximab vedotin is a monoclonal antibody, brentuximab, linked to a toxic agent called vedotin. Brentuximab attaches to CD30-positive cancer cells in a targeted way and delivers vedotin to kill them. It is not known whether giving brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab may kill more cancer cells.

ID: NCT01896999

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 486 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

 

 

Leukemia

Testing Early Treatment for Patients With High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL), EVOLVE CLL/SLL Study

This phase III trial compares early treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab versus delayed treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Venetoclax is in a class of medications called B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) inhibitors. It may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking BCL-2, a protein needed for cancer cell survival. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as obinutuzumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab early (before patients have symptoms) may have better outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma compared to starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab after patients show symptoms.

ID: NCT04269902

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 545 locations, Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and Durham VA Medical Center

Testing the Use of Steroids and TyrosineKinase Inhibitors With Blinatumomab or Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed BCR-ABL-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults

This phase III trial compares the effect of usual treatment of chemotherapy and steroids and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to the same treatment plus blinatumomab. Blinatumomab is a Bi-specific T-cell Engager (‘BiTE’) that may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. The information gained from this study may help researchers determine if combination therapy with steroids, TKIs, and blinatumomab work better than the standard of care.

ID: NCT04530565

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 180 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Asciminib Monotherapy, With Dose Escalation, for 2nd and 1st Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (ASC2ESCALATE)

This will be a multicenter Phase II open-label study of asciminib in CML-CP patients who have been previously treated with one prior ATP-binding site TKI with discontinuation due to treatment failure, warning or intolerance. (2L patient cohort). In addition, newly diagnosed CML-CP patients who may have received up to 4 weeks of prior TKI are included in a separate 1L patient cohort.

ID: NCT05384587

Sponsor: Novartis

Locations: 26 locations, including VA Puget Sound Health Care System

Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry

This Disease Registry will collect data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. The objective is to describe how patients with myeloid diseases are treated; and to build a knowledge base regarding the effectiveness and safety of first-line and subsequent treatment regimens in both community and academic settings. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including initial treatment and any subsequent therapy. Data on treatment outcomes, including response rates as measured by the treating physician, evidence of progression, survival, and patient-reported outcomes will be collected quarterly on the electronic CRF.

ID: NCT01688011

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 240 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Manchester VA Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center, White River Junction VA Medical Center, and VA Caribbean Healthcare System

Esophageal Cancer

Non-endoscopic Esophageal Sampling to Detect Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer in Veterans

This study seeks to incorporate non-endoscopic detection method (Esocheck/Esoguard) in primary care practice and test whether this screening modality increases the positive predictive value of upper endoscopy and increases the detection of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Currently, BE is diagnosed only when patients undergo endoscopy with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, due to the high cost of EGD and the lack of a randomized controlled trials supporting its efficacy, endoscopy to screen for BE is not routinely recommended. Current guidelines do recommend sedated EGD in patients with multiple BE risk factors, refractory GERD, or alarm symptoms. This strategy fails to detect BE in patients whose symptoms are well controlled with either over the counter medications or physician prescribed therapies. It also fails to detect BE in asymptomatic subjects who comprise 40% of those that develop EAC. Thus, < 10% of EACs are diagnosed as early stage lesions caught by surveillance of patients with previously detected BE. Ablative nonsurgical therapies that have been developed for preventing cancer in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia over the past decade will have little impact and the 5-year survival for EACs will remain a dismal 18% unless more effective programs for identifying BE and early EAC are developed.

Esocheck/Esoguard is a FDA approved device designed to sample the distal esophagus and analyze the collected material for presence of two methylated DNA markers. The Specific Aims of this study are:

To determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Esocheck/Esoguard performed in routine practice for detecting BE in an at risk Veteran population

To compare the yield of detected BE using EGD alone vs. stepwise molecular diagnostics(Esocheck/Esoguard) and endoscopic screening strategy (EGD) in at risk Veteran population.

ID: NCT05210049

Sponsor: Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation

Location: Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center

Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus and the Creation of a Barrett’s Registry

The purpose of this study is to determine or evaluate the risk factors such as smoking, family history etc. that cause esophageal cancer and to determine the genetic changes that lead to esophageal cancer. The investigators hypothesis is that systematic collection of data on the natural history of GERD and BE patients and risk factors for development of BE in patients with chronic GERD and progression of BE to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma will provide useful information to develop a decision model for risk stratification and risk reduction strategies in these patients.

ID: NCT00574327

Sponsor: Midwest Biomedical Research Foundation

Location: Kansas City VA Medical Center

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a therapeutic approach to health care used in association with or in place of standard medical therapeutic approaches. When describing CAM, the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, but the terms refer to different concepts. A nonmainstream approach used together with conventional medicine is considered complementary, whereas an approach used in place of conventional medicine is considered alternative. Most people who use nonmainstream approaches also use conventional health care.¹

Integrative medicine represents therapeutic interventions that bring conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are ≥ 2 interventions such as conventional (eg, medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy) and complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than 1 organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different practitioners and institutions.¹

Functional medicine requires an individualized assessment and therapeutic plan for each patient, including optimizing the function of each organ system. It uses research to understand a patient’s unique needs and formulates a plan that often uses diet, exercise, and stress reduction methods. Functional medicine may use combinations of naturopathic, osteopathic, and chiropractic medicine, among other therapies. Functional medicine has been called a systems biology model, and patients and practitioners work together to achieve the highest expression of health by addressing the underlying causes of disease.^2,3

According to a 2012 national survey, more than 30% of adults and about 12% of children use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that may have unconventional origins. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that the most common complementary medical interventions from 2002 to 2012 included natural products, deep breathing, yoga and other movement programs, and chiropractic, among others. Magnets, magnetic fields, and copper devices (MMFC), which are the focus of this study, were not among the top listed interventions.⁴ Recent data showed that individuals in the United States are high users of CAM, including many patients who have neoplastic disease.^5,6

MMFCs are a part of CAM and are reported to be a billion-dollar industry worldwide, although it is not well studied.^7,8 In our study, magnet refers to the use of a magnet in contact with the body, magnetic field refers to exposure to a magnetic field administered without direct contact with the body, and copper devices refer to devices that are in contact with the body, such as bracelets, necklaces, wraps, and joint braces. These devices are often constructed using copper mesh, or weaved copper wires. Advertising has helped to increase interest in the use of these devices for musculoskeletal pain and restricted joint movement therapies. However, it is less clear whether MMFCs are being used to provide therapy for other medical conditions, such as neoplastic disease.

It is unclear how widespread MMFC use is or how it is accessed. A 2016 study of veterans and CAM use did not specifically address MMFCs.⁹ A Japanese study of the use of CAM provided or prescribed by a physician found that just 12 of 1575 respondents (0.7%) described using magnetic therapy.¹⁰ A Korean internet study that assessed the use of CAM found that of 1668 respondents who received CAM therapy by practice or advice of a physician, 1.2% used magnet therapy.^11,12 An online study of CAM use in patients with multiple sclerosis found that 9 of 1286 respondents (0.7%) had used magnetic field therapy in the previous 3 months.¹³

In this study, we aimed to assess MMFC use and perspectives in a veteran population at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CTHVAMC) in Phoenix, Arizona.

METHODS

We created a brief questionnaire regarding MMFC use and perspectives and distributed it to veteran patients at the infusion center at the CTHVAMC. The study was approved by the CTHVAMC department of research, and the institutional review board determined that informed consent was not required. The questionnaire did not collect any specific personal identifying data but included the participant’s sex, age, and diagnosis. Although there are standardized questionnaires concerning the use of CAM, we designed a new survey for MMFCs. The participants in the study were consecutive patients referred to the CTHVAMC infusion center for IV or other nonoral therapies. Referrals came from endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other specialties (eg, allergy/immunology).

The questionnaire was 1 page (front and back) and was completed anonymously without involvement by the study investigators or infusion center staff. Dated and consecutively numbered questionnaires were given to patients receiving therapy regardless of their diagnosis. Ages were categorized into groups: 18 to 30 years; 31 to 50 years; 51 to 65 years; and ≥ 66 years. Diagnoses were categorized by specialty: endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other. We noted in a previous similar study that the exact diagnosis was often left blank, but the specialty was more often completed.⁹ Since some patients required multiple visits to the infusion center, respondents were asked whether they had previously answered the questionnaire; there were no duplications.

The population we studied was under stress while receiving therapy for underlying illnesses. To improve the response rate and accuracy of the responses, we limited the number of survey questions. Since many of the respondents in the infusion center for therapy received medications that could alter their ability to respond, all questionnaires were administered prior to therapeutic intervention. In addition to the background data, respondents were asked: Do you apply magnets to your body, use magnetic field therapy, or copper devices? If you use any of these therapies, is it for pain, your diagnosis, or other? Would you consider participating in a clinical trial using magnets applied to the body or magnetic therapy?

RESULTS

We collected 210 surveys. Four surveys were missing data and were excluded. The majority of respondents (n = 133, 64%) were in the hematology/oncology diagnostic group and 121 (59%) were aged ≥ 66 years (Table 1).

Respondents were asked whether they were using MMFC therapies. The results from all age groups showed an 18% overall use and in the diagnosis groups an overall use of 23%. Eighteen respondents (35%) aged 51 to 65 years reported using MMFC, followed by 6 respondents (21%) aged 31 to 50 years. Patients with an endocrinology diagnosis had the highest rate of MMFC use (6 of 11 patients; 55%) but more patients (33 of 133 [25%]) with a hematology/oncology diagnosis used MMFCs.

Copper was the most widely used MMFC therapy among individuals who used a single MMFC therapy. Twenty respondents reported copper use, 6 used magnets, and no respondents used magnetic field therapy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.

Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.

Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.¹⁴ We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.

The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.¹⁵ Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.¹⁶ Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.

CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.¹⁷ In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.¹⁴ Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).¹⁸

Limitations

Patients with endocrinology diagnoses were the most likely to use MMFCs but were a very small percentage of the infusion center population, which could skew the data. The surveyed individuals may not have been representative of the overall patient population. Similarly, the patient population at CTHVAMC, which is primarily male and aged ≥ 66 years, may not be representative of other veteran and nonveteran patient populations.

Conclusions

MMFC devices are being used regularly by patients as a form of CAM therapy, but few studies researching the use of CAM therapy have generated data that are as specific as this study is about the use of these MMFC devices. Although there is considerable general public awareness of MMFC therapies and devices, we believe that there is a need to quantify the use of these devices. We further believe that our study is one of the first to look specifically at the use of MMFCs in a veteran population. We have found a considerable use of MMFCs in the veteran population studied, and we also showed that whether or not veterans are using these devices, they are willing to be part of research that uses the devices. Further studies would look at a more general veteran population, look more in depth at the way and for what purpose these devices are being used, and consider the development of clinical research studies that use MMFCs.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a therapeutic approach to health care used in association with or in place of standard medical therapeutic approaches. When describing CAM, the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, but the terms refer to different concepts. A nonmainstream approach used together with conventional medicine is considered complementary, whereas an approach used in place of conventional medicine is considered alternative. Most people who use nonmainstream approaches also use conventional health care.¹

Integrative medicine represents therapeutic interventions that bring conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are ≥ 2 interventions such as conventional (eg, medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy) and complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than 1 organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different practitioners and institutions.¹

Functional medicine requires an individualized assessment and therapeutic plan for each patient, including optimizing the function of each organ system. It uses research to understand a patient’s unique needs and formulates a plan that often uses diet, exercise, and stress reduction methods. Functional medicine may use combinations of naturopathic, osteopathic, and chiropractic medicine, among other therapies. Functional medicine has been called a systems biology model, and patients and practitioners work together to achieve the highest expression of health by addressing the underlying causes of disease.^2,3

According to a 2012 national survey, more than 30% of adults and about 12% of children use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that may have unconventional origins. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that the most common complementary medical interventions from 2002 to 2012 included natural products, deep breathing, yoga and other movement programs, and chiropractic, among others. Magnets, magnetic fields, and copper devices (MMFC), which are the focus of this study, were not among the top listed interventions.⁴ Recent data showed that individuals in the United States are high users of CAM, including many patients who have neoplastic disease.^5,6

MMFCs are a part of CAM and are reported to be a billion-dollar industry worldwide, although it is not well studied.^7,8 In our study, magnet refers to the use of a magnet in contact with the body, magnetic field refers to exposure to a magnetic field administered without direct contact with the body, and copper devices refer to devices that are in contact with the body, such as bracelets, necklaces, wraps, and joint braces. These devices are often constructed using copper mesh, or weaved copper wires. Advertising has helped to increase interest in the use of these devices for musculoskeletal pain and restricted joint movement therapies. However, it is less clear whether MMFCs are being used to provide therapy for other medical conditions, such as neoplastic disease.

It is unclear how widespread MMFC use is or how it is accessed. A 2016 study of veterans and CAM use did not specifically address MMFCs.⁹ A Japanese study of the use of CAM provided or prescribed by a physician found that just 12 of 1575 respondents (0.7%) described using magnetic therapy.¹⁰ A Korean internet study that assessed the use of CAM found that of 1668 respondents who received CAM therapy by practice or advice of a physician, 1.2% used magnet therapy.^11,12 An online study of CAM use in patients with multiple sclerosis found that 9 of 1286 respondents (0.7%) had used magnetic field therapy in the previous 3 months.¹³

In this study, we aimed to assess MMFC use and perspectives in a veteran population at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CTHVAMC) in Phoenix, Arizona.

METHODS

We created a brief questionnaire regarding MMFC use and perspectives and distributed it to veteran patients at the infusion center at the CTHVAMC. The study was approved by the CTHVAMC department of research, and the institutional review board determined that informed consent was not required. The questionnaire did not collect any specific personal identifying data but included the participant’s sex, age, and diagnosis. Although there are standardized questionnaires concerning the use of CAM, we designed a new survey for MMFCs. The participants in the study were consecutive patients referred to the CTHVAMC infusion center for IV or other nonoral therapies. Referrals came from endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other specialties (eg, allergy/immunology).

The questionnaire was 1 page (front and back) and was completed anonymously without involvement by the study investigators or infusion center staff. Dated and consecutively numbered questionnaires were given to patients receiving therapy regardless of their diagnosis. Ages were categorized into groups: 18 to 30 years; 31 to 50 years; 51 to 65 years; and ≥ 66 years. Diagnoses were categorized by specialty: endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other. We noted in a previous similar study that the exact diagnosis was often left blank, but the specialty was more often completed.⁹ Since some patients required multiple visits to the infusion center, respondents were asked whether they had previously answered the questionnaire; there were no duplications.

The population we studied was under stress while receiving therapy for underlying illnesses. To improve the response rate and accuracy of the responses, we limited the number of survey questions. Since many of the respondents in the infusion center for therapy received medications that could alter their ability to respond, all questionnaires were administered prior to therapeutic intervention. In addition to the background data, respondents were asked: Do you apply magnets to your body, use magnetic field therapy, or copper devices? If you use any of these therapies, is it for pain, your diagnosis, or other? Would you consider participating in a clinical trial using magnets applied to the body or magnetic therapy?

RESULTS

We collected 210 surveys. Four surveys were missing data and were excluded. The majority of respondents (n = 133, 64%) were in the hematology/oncology diagnostic group and 121 (59%) were aged ≥ 66 years (Table 1).

Respondents were asked whether they were using MMFC therapies. The results from all age groups showed an 18% overall use and in the diagnosis groups an overall use of 23%. Eighteen respondents (35%) aged 51 to 65 years reported using MMFC, followed by 6 respondents (21%) aged 31 to 50 years. Patients with an endocrinology diagnosis had the highest rate of MMFC use (6 of 11 patients; 55%) but more patients (33 of 133 [25%]) with a hematology/oncology diagnosis used MMFCs.

Copper was the most widely used MMFC therapy among individuals who used a single MMFC therapy. Twenty respondents reported copper use, 6 used magnets, and no respondents used magnetic field therapy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.

Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.

Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.¹⁴ We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.

The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.¹⁵ Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.¹⁶ Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.

CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.¹⁷ In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.¹⁴ Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).¹⁸

Limitations

Patients with endocrinology diagnoses were the most likely to use MMFCs but were a very small percentage of the infusion center population, which could skew the data. The surveyed individuals may not have been representative of the overall patient population. Similarly, the patient population at CTHVAMC, which is primarily male and aged ≥ 66 years, may not be representative of other veteran and nonveteran patient populations.

Conclusions

MMFC devices are being used regularly by patients as a form of CAM therapy, but few studies researching the use of CAM therapy have generated data that are as specific as this study is about the use of these MMFC devices. Although there is considerable general public awareness of MMFC therapies and devices, we believe that there is a need to quantify the use of these devices. We further believe that our study is one of the first to look specifically at the use of MMFCs in a veteran population. We have found a considerable use of MMFCs in the veteran population studied, and we also showed that whether or not veterans are using these devices, they are willing to be part of research that uses the devices. Further studies would look at a more general veteran population, look more in depth at the way and for what purpose these devices are being used, and consider the development of clinical research studies that use MMFCs.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a therapeutic approach to health care used in association with or in place of standard medical therapeutic approaches. When describing CAM, the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, but the terms refer to different concepts. A nonmainstream approach used together with conventional medicine is considered complementary, whereas an approach used in place of conventional medicine is considered alternative. Most people who use nonmainstream approaches also use conventional health care.¹

Integrative medicine represents therapeutic interventions that bring conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way. Integrative health also emphasizes multimodal interventions, which are ≥ 2 interventions such as conventional (eg, medication, physical rehabilitation, psychotherapy) and complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, yoga, and probiotics) in various combinations, with an emphasis on treating the whole person rather than 1 organ system. Integrative health aims for well-coordinated care among different practitioners and institutions.¹

Functional medicine requires an individualized assessment and therapeutic plan for each patient, including optimizing the function of each organ system. It uses research to understand a patient’s unique needs and formulates a plan that often uses diet, exercise, and stress reduction methods. Functional medicine may use combinations of naturopathic, osteopathic, and chiropractic medicine, among other therapies. Functional medicine has been called a systems biology model, and patients and practitioners work together to achieve the highest expression of health by addressing the underlying causes of disease.^2,3

According to a 2012 national survey, more than 30% of adults and about 12% of children use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that may have unconventional origins. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that the most common complementary medical interventions from 2002 to 2012 included natural products, deep breathing, yoga and other movement programs, and chiropractic, among others. Magnets, magnetic fields, and copper devices (MMFC), which are the focus of this study, were not among the top listed interventions.⁴ Recent data showed that individuals in the United States are high users of CAM, including many patients who have neoplastic disease.^5,6

MMFCs are a part of CAM and are reported to be a billion-dollar industry worldwide, although it is not well studied.^7,8 In our study, magnet refers to the use of a magnet in contact with the body, magnetic field refers to exposure to a magnetic field administered without direct contact with the body, and copper devices refer to devices that are in contact with the body, such as bracelets, necklaces, wraps, and joint braces. These devices are often constructed using copper mesh, or weaved copper wires. Advertising has helped to increase interest in the use of these devices for musculoskeletal pain and restricted joint movement therapies. However, it is less clear whether MMFCs are being used to provide therapy for other medical conditions, such as neoplastic disease.

It is unclear how widespread MMFC use is or how it is accessed. A 2016 study of veterans and CAM use did not specifically address MMFCs.⁹ A Japanese study of the use of CAM provided or prescribed by a physician found that just 12 of 1575 respondents (0.7%) described using magnetic therapy.¹⁰ A Korean internet study that assessed the use of CAM found that of 1668 respondents who received CAM therapy by practice or advice of a physician, 1.2% used magnet therapy.^11,12 An online study of CAM use in patients with multiple sclerosis found that 9 of 1286 respondents (0.7%) had used magnetic field therapy in the previous 3 months.¹³

In this study, we aimed to assess MMFC use and perspectives in a veteran population at the Carl T. Hayden Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CTHVAMC) in Phoenix, Arizona.

METHODS

We created a brief questionnaire regarding MMFC use and perspectives and distributed it to veteran patients at the infusion center at the CTHVAMC. The study was approved by the CTHVAMC department of research, and the institutional review board determined that informed consent was not required. The questionnaire did not collect any specific personal identifying data but included the participant’s sex, age, and diagnosis. Although there are standardized questionnaires concerning the use of CAM, we designed a new survey for MMFCs. The participants in the study were consecutive patients referred to the CTHVAMC infusion center for IV or other nonoral therapies. Referrals came from endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other specialties (eg, allergy/immunology).

The questionnaire was 1 page (front and back) and was completed anonymously without involvement by the study investigators or infusion center staff. Dated and consecutively numbered questionnaires were given to patients receiving therapy regardless of their diagnosis. Ages were categorized into groups: 18 to 30 years; 31 to 50 years; 51 to 65 years; and ≥ 66 years. Diagnoses were categorized by specialty: endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, rheumatology, and other. We noted in a previous similar study that the exact diagnosis was often left blank, but the specialty was more often completed.⁹ Since some patients required multiple visits to the infusion center, respondents were asked whether they had previously answered the questionnaire; there were no duplications.

The population we studied was under stress while receiving therapy for underlying illnesses. To improve the response rate and accuracy of the responses, we limited the number of survey questions. Since many of the respondents in the infusion center for therapy received medications that could alter their ability to respond, all questionnaires were administered prior to therapeutic intervention. In addition to the background data, respondents were asked: Do you apply magnets to your body, use magnetic field therapy, or copper devices? If you use any of these therapies, is it for pain, your diagnosis, or other? Would you consider participating in a clinical trial using magnets applied to the body or magnetic therapy?

RESULTS

We collected 210 surveys. Four surveys were missing data and were excluded. The majority of respondents (n = 133, 64%) were in the hematology/oncology diagnostic group and 121 (59%) were aged ≥ 66 years (Table 1).

Respondents were asked whether they were using MMFC therapies. The results from all age groups showed an 18% overall use and in the diagnosis groups an overall use of 23%. Eighteen respondents (35%) aged 51 to 65 years reported using MMFC, followed by 6 respondents (21%) aged 31 to 50 years. Patients with an endocrinology diagnosis had the highest rate of MMFC use (6 of 11 patients; 55%) but more patients (33 of 133 [25%]) with a hematology/oncology diagnosis used MMFCs.

Copper was the most widely used MMFC therapy among individuals who used a single MMFC therapy. Twenty respondents reported copper use, 6 used magnets, and no respondents used magnetic field therapy (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

We surveyed a population of veterans at the CTHVAMC infusion center who were receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, biologic therapy, immunomodulatory therapy, transfusion, and other therapies to evaluate their use of MMFC. We chose this group to sample because of how accessible this group was and the belief that there would be an adequate survey response. We hypothesized that by asking about a specific group of CAM therapies and not, as in many surveys, multiple CAM therapies, there would be an improved response rate. We expected that very few respondents would indicate MMFC use because in a similar study conducted in 2003 to 2004 at CTHVAMC, none of the 380 survey respondents (all with a hematology/oncology diagnosis) indicated magnet or magnetic field use (JR Salvatore, unpublished data). Although copper devices were available at that time, they were not included in that study. The current survey added copper devices and showed a greater use of MMFC, including copper devices. We identified veterans who used either 1 MMFC or multiple therapies. In both groups, copper devices were the most common. This may be due to the ubiquity and availability of copper devices. These devices are highly visible and promoted by professional athletes and other well-known personalities.

Our findings showed 2 unexpected results. First, there was greater than expected use of magnets and copper devices. Second, an even less expected result that there was considerable interest in participating in clinical research that used magnets or magnetic fields.

Respondents indicated a high interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic fields regardless of their history of MMFC use. We did not ask about a trial using copper devices because there is less scientific/medical research to justify studying those devices as opposed to data that support the use of magnets or magnetic fields. The data presented in this study suggest interest in participating in clinical trials using magnets or magnetic field therapy. One clinical trial combined static magnets as an adjuvant to antineoplastic chemotherapy.¹⁴ We believe this is the first publication to specifically quantify both MMFC use in a veteran (or any) population, and to identify the desire to participate in clinical studies that would utilize magnets or magnetic fields, whether or not they currently use magnets or magnetic fields. Based on current knowledge, it is not clear whether use of MMFC by patients represents a risk or a benefit to the population studied, and seeking that information is part of the continuation of our work. We also believe that the data in this study will help practitioners to consider asking patients specifically whether they are using these therapies, and if so why and with what result. We are extending our work to a more generalized patient population.

The use of copper devices relates to beliefs (dating to the mid-1800s) that there was a relationship between copper deficiency and rheumatologic disorders. Copper devices are used as therapies because of the belief that small amounts of copper are absorbed through the skin, decreasing inflammation, particularly around joint spaces.¹⁵ Recent data suggest a mechanism for copper-induced cell death.¹⁶ Although this recent research suggests a mechanism for how copper might induce cell death, it is unclear how this would be applied to establishing a mechanism for the health effects of wearing copper devices. Since copper devices are thought to decrease inflammation, they may have a theoretical function by decreasing the number of inflammatory cells in an affected space.

CAM magnetics are typically of lower strength. The field generated by magnets is measured and reported in Tesla. Magnetic resonance imaging typically generates from 1.5 to 3 Tesla. A refrigerator magnet is about 1 milliTesla.¹⁷ In a study conducted at the CTHVAMC, the strength of the magnets used was measured at distances from the magnet. For example, at 2 cm from the magnet, the measured strength was 18 milliTesla.¹⁴ Many MMFC devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration are pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) devices for healing of nonunion fractures (approved in 1979); cervical and lumbar fusion therapies (approved in 2004); and therapy for anxiety and depression (approved in 2006).¹⁸

Limitations

Patients with endocrinology diagnoses were the most likely to use MMFCs but were a very small percentage of the infusion center population, which could skew the data. The surveyed individuals may not have been representative of the overall patient population. Similarly, the patient population at CTHVAMC, which is primarily male and aged ≥ 66 years, may not be representative of other veteran and nonveteran patient populations.

Conclusions

MMFC devices are being used regularly by patients as a form of CAM therapy, but few studies researching the use of CAM therapy have generated data that are as specific as this study is about the use of these MMFC devices. Although there is considerable general public awareness of MMFC therapies and devices, we believe that there is a need to quantify the use of these devices. We further believe that our study is one of the first to look specifically at the use of MMFCs in a veteran population. We have found a considerable use of MMFCs in the veteran population studied, and we also showed that whether or not veterans are using these devices, they are willing to be part of research that uses the devices. Further studies would look at a more general veteran population, look more in depth at the way and for what purpose these devices are being used, and consider the development of clinical research studies that use MMFCs.

Originally developed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is distinguished by its high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carbohydrate food program. Preclinical models provide emerging evidence that a ketogenic diet can have therapeutic potential for a broad range of cancers. The Warburg effect is a condition where cancer cells increase the uptake and fermentation of glucose to produce lactate for their metabolism, which is called aerobic glycolysis. Lactate is the key driver of cancer angiogenesis and proliferation.^1,2

The ketogenic diet promotes a metabolic shift from glycolysis to mitochondrial metabolism in normal cells while cancer cells have dysfunction in their mitochondria due to damage in cellular respiration. The ketogenic diet creates a metabolic state whereby blood glucose levels are reduced, and blood ketone bodies (D-β-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) are elevated. In normal cells, the ketogenic diet causes a decrease in glucose intake for glycolysis, which makes them unable to produce enough substrate to enter the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Fatty acid oxidation plays a key role in ketone body synthesis as a “super fuel” that enter the TCA cycle as an alternative pathway to generate ATP. On the other hand, cancer cells are unable to use ketone bodies to produce ATP for energy and metabolism due to mitochondrial defects. Lack of energy subsequently leads to the inhibition of proliferation and survival of cancer cells.^3,4

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old veteran had iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin, 6.5 g/dL) about 5 years previously. He underwent a colonoscopy that revealed a near circumferential ulcerated mass measuring 7 cm in the transverse colon. Biopsy results showed mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon with a foci of signet ring cells (Figure 2).

The patient received adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and oxaliplatin), but within several months he developed pancreatic and worsening omental metastasis seen on PET/CT. He was then started on FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and irinotecan hydrochloride) plus bevacizumab 16 months after his initial diagnosis. He underwent a pancreatic mastectomy that confirmed adenocarcinoma 9 months later. Afterward, he briefly resumed FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Next-generation sequencing testing with Foundation One CDx revealed a wild-type (WT) KRAS with a high degree of tumor mutation burden of 37 muts/Mb, BRAF V600E mutation, and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this case report is to describe whether a patient receiving active cancer treatment was able to tolerate the ketogenic diet in conjunction with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Most literature published on the subject evaluated the tolerability and response of the ketogenic diet after the failure of standard therapy. Our patient was diagnosed with stage III mucinous colon adenocarcinoma. He received adjuvant chemotherapy but quickly developed metastatic disease to the pancreas and omentum. We started him on encorafenib and cetuximab based on the BEACON study that showed improvement in response rate and survival when compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with BRAF V600E mutation.⁵ Unfortunately, his cancer quickly progressed within 4 months and again did not respond to pembrolizumab despite MSI-H, which lasted for another 4 months.

We suggested the ketogenic diet and the patient agreed. He started the diet along with trifluridine/tipiracil, and bevacizumab in January 2021. The patient’s metastatic cancer stabilized for 9 months until his disease progressed again. He was started on doublet immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab based on his MSI-H and high tumor mutation burden with the continuation of the ketogenic diet until now. The CheckMate 142 study revealed that the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with MSI-H previously treated for metastatic colon cancer showed some benefit.⁶

Our patient had the loss of nuclear expression of MLH1 and PMS2 (zero tumor stained) but no evidence of the loss expression of MSH2 and MSH6 genes (99% tumor stained). About 8% to 12% of patients with metastatic colon cancer have BRAF V600E mutations that are usually mucinous type, poorly differentiated, and located in the right side of the colon, which portends to a poor prognosis. Tumor DNA mismatch repair damage results in genetic hypermutability and leads to MSI that is sensitive to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, as in our patient. Only about 3% of MSI-H tumors are due to germline mutations such as Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). The presence of both MLH1 hypermethylation and BRAF mutation, as in our patient, is a strong indication of somatic rather than germline mutation.⁷

GKI, which represents the ratio of glucose to ketone, was developed to evaluate the efficacy of the ketogenic diet. This index measures the degree of metabolic stress on tumor cells through the decrease of glucose levels and increase of ketone bodies. A GKI of ≤ 1.0 has been suggested as the ideal therapeutic goal for cancer management.⁸ As levels of blood glucose decline, the blood levels of ketone bodies should rise. These 2 lines should eventually intersect at a certain point beyond which one enters the therapeutic zone or therapeutic ketosis zone. This is when tumor growth is expected to slow or cease.⁹ The patient’s ketone (β-hydroxybutyrate) level was initially high (0.71 mmol/L) with a GKI of 8.2. (low ketotic level), which meant he tolerated a rather strict diet for the first several months. This was also reflected in his 18 lb weight loss (almost 10% of body weight) and cancer stabilization, as in our previous publication.¹ Unfortunately, the patient was unable to maintain high ketone and lower GKI levels due to fatigue from depleted carbohydrate intake. He added some carbohydrate snacks in between meals, which improved the fatigue. His ketone level has been < 0.5 mmol/L ever since, albeit his disease continues to be stable. The patient continues his daily work and reports a better QOL, based on the ECOG QLC-C30 form that he completed every 3 months.¹⁰ Currently, the patient is still receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab while maintaining the ketogenic diet with stable metastatic disease on PET/CT.

Ketogenic Diet and Cellular Mechanism of Action

PI3K/Akt (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase) signaling is one of the most important intracellular pathways for tumor cells. It leads to the inhibition of apoptosis and the promotion of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis. Deregulation of the PI3K pathway either via amplification of PI3K by tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors or inactivation of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), which is the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, contributes to the development of cancer cells.¹¹

A study by Goncalves and colleagues revealed an interesting relationship between the PI3K pathway and the benefit of the ketogenic diet to slow tumor growth. PI3K inhibitors inhibit glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue that activate hepatic glycogenolysis. This event results in hyperglycemia due to the pancreas releasing very high levels of insulin into the blood (hyperinsulinemia) that subsequently reactivate PI3K signaling and cause resistance to PI3K inhibitors. The ketogenic diet reportedly minimized the hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by the PI3K inhibitor and enhanced the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors in tumor models. Studies combining PI3K inhibitors and ketogenic diet are underway. Hence, combining the ketogenic diet with chemotherapy or other novel treatment should be the focus of ketogenic diet trials.^12,13

 

 

Ketogenic Diet and Oncology Studies

The impact of the ketogenic diet on the growth of murine pancreatic tumors was evaluated by Yang and colleagues. The ketogenic diet decreased glucose concentration that enters the TCA cycle and increased fatty acid oxidation that produces β-hydroxybutyrate. This event promotes the generation of ATP, although with only modest elevations of NADH with less impact on tumor growth. The combination of ketogenic diet and standard chemotherapy substantially raised tumor NADH and suppressed the growth of murine tumor cells, they noted.¹⁴ Furukawa and colleagues compared 10 patients with metastatic colon cancer receiving chemotherapy plus the modified medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet for 1 year with 14 patients receiving chemotherapy only. The ketogenic diet group exhibited a response rate of 60% with 5 patients achieving a complete response and a disease control rate of 70%, while the chemotherapy-alone group showed a response rate of only 21% with no complete response and a disease control rate of 64%.¹⁵

The ketogenic diet also reportedly stimulates cytokine and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell production that stimulates T-cell killing activity. The ketogenic diet may overcome several immune escape mechanisms by downregulating the expression of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.¹⁶ Our patient tolerated the combination of the ketogenic diet with ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) without significant toxicities and stabilization of his disease.

Future Directions

We originally presented the abstract and poster of this case report at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology annual meeting in San Diego, California, in September 2022.¹⁷ Based on our previous experience, we are now using a modified Atkins diet, which is a less strict diet consisting of 60% fat, 30% protein, and 10% carbohydrates combined with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. The composition of fat to carbohydrate plus protein in the traditional ketogenic diet is usually 4:1 or 3:1, while in modified Atkins diet the ratio is 1:1 or 2:1. The benefit of the modified Atkins diet is that patients can consume more protein than a strict ketogenic diet and they can be more liberal in carbohydrate allowances. We are about to open a study protocol of combining a modified Atkin diet and chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for veterans with all types of advanced or metastatic solid tumors at VACCHCS. The study protocol was approved by the VA Office of Research and Development and has been submitted to the VACCHCS Institutional Review Board for review. Once approved, we will start patient recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cells have defects in their mitochondria that prevent them from generating energy for metabolism in the absence of glucose. They also depend on the PI3K signaling pathway to survive. The ketogenic diet has the advantage of affecting cancer cell growth by exploiting these mitochondrial defects and blocking hyperglycemia. There is growing evidence that the ketogenic diet is feasible, tolerable, and reportedly inhibits cancer growth. Our case report and previous publications suggest that the ketogenic diet can be added to chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care cancer treatment while maintaining good QOL. We are planning to open a clinical trial using the modified Atkins diet in conjunction with active cancer treatments as first-line therapy for metastatic solid tumors at the VACCHCS. We are also working closely with researchers from several veteran hospitals to do a diet collaborative study. We believe the ketogenic diet is an important part of cancer treatment and has a promising future. More research should be dedicated to this very interesting field.

Acknowledgments

We previously presented this case report in an abstract and poster at the September 2022 AVAHO meeting in San Diego, California.

Originally developed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is distinguished by its high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carbohydrate food program. Preclinical models provide emerging evidence that a ketogenic diet can have therapeutic potential for a broad range of cancers. The Warburg effect is a condition where cancer cells increase the uptake and fermentation of glucose to produce lactate for their metabolism, which is called aerobic glycolysis. Lactate is the key driver of cancer angiogenesis and proliferation.^1,2

The ketogenic diet promotes a metabolic shift from glycolysis to mitochondrial metabolism in normal cells while cancer cells have dysfunction in their mitochondria due to damage in cellular respiration. The ketogenic diet creates a metabolic state whereby blood glucose levels are reduced, and blood ketone bodies (D-β-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) are elevated. In normal cells, the ketogenic diet causes a decrease in glucose intake for glycolysis, which makes them unable to produce enough substrate to enter the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Fatty acid oxidation plays a key role in ketone body synthesis as a “super fuel” that enter the TCA cycle as an alternative pathway to generate ATP. On the other hand, cancer cells are unable to use ketone bodies to produce ATP for energy and metabolism due to mitochondrial defects. Lack of energy subsequently leads to the inhibition of proliferation and survival of cancer cells.^3,4

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old veteran had iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin, 6.5 g/dL) about 5 years previously. He underwent a colonoscopy that revealed a near circumferential ulcerated mass measuring 7 cm in the transverse colon. Biopsy results showed mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon with a foci of signet ring cells (Figure 2).

The patient received adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and oxaliplatin), but within several months he developed pancreatic and worsening omental metastasis seen on PET/CT. He was then started on FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and irinotecan hydrochloride) plus bevacizumab 16 months after his initial diagnosis. He underwent a pancreatic mastectomy that confirmed adenocarcinoma 9 months later. Afterward, he briefly resumed FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Next-generation sequencing testing with Foundation One CDx revealed a wild-type (WT) KRAS with a high degree of tumor mutation burden of 37 muts/Mb, BRAF V600E mutation, and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).

 

 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this case report is to describe whether a patient receiving active cancer treatment was able to tolerate the ketogenic diet in conjunction with chemotherapy or immunotherapy. Most literature published on the subject evaluated the tolerability and response of the ketogenic diet after the failure of standard therapy. Our patient was diagnosed with stage III mucinous colon adenocarcinoma. He received adjuvant chemotherapy but quickly developed metastatic disease to the pancreas and omentum. We started him on encorafenib and cetuximab based on the BEACON study that showed improvement in response rate and survival when compared with standard chemotherapy for patients with BRAF V600E mutation.⁵ Unfortunately, his cancer quickly progressed within 4 months and again did not respond to pembrolizumab despite MSI-H, which lasted for another 4 months.

We suggested the ketogenic diet and the patient agreed. He started the diet along with trifluridine/tipiracil, and bevacizumab in January 2021. The patient’s metastatic cancer stabilized for 9 months until his disease progressed again. He was started on doublet immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab based on his MSI-H and high tumor mutation burden with the continuation of the ketogenic diet until now. The CheckMate 142 study revealed that the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with MSI-H previously treated for metastatic colon cancer showed some benefit.⁶

Our patient had the loss of nuclear expression of MLH1 and PMS2 (zero tumor stained) but no evidence of the loss expression of MSH2 and MSH6 genes (99% tumor stained). About 8% to 12% of patients with metastatic colon cancer have BRAF V600E mutations that are usually mucinous type, poorly differentiated, and located in the right side of the colon, which portends to a poor prognosis. Tumor DNA mismatch repair damage results in genetic hypermutability and leads to MSI that is sensitive to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors, as in our patient. Only about 3% of MSI-H tumors are due to germline mutations such as Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). The presence of both MLH1 hypermethylation and BRAF mutation, as in our patient, is a strong indication of somatic rather than germline mutation.⁷

GKI, which represents the ratio of glucose to ketone, was developed to evaluate the efficacy of the ketogenic diet. This index measures the degree of metabolic stress on tumor cells through the decrease of glucose levels and increase of ketone bodies. A GKI of ≤ 1.0 has been suggested as the ideal therapeutic goal for cancer management.⁸ As levels of blood glucose decline, the blood levels of ketone bodies should rise. These 2 lines should eventually intersect at a certain point beyond which one enters the therapeutic zone or therapeutic ketosis zone. This is when tumor growth is expected to slow or cease.⁹ The patient’s ketone (β-hydroxybutyrate) level was initially high (0.71 mmol/L) with a GKI of 8.2. (low ketotic level), which meant he tolerated a rather strict diet for the first several months. This was also reflected in his 18 lb weight loss (almost 10% of body weight) and cancer stabilization, as in our previous publication.¹ Unfortunately, the patient was unable to maintain high ketone and lower GKI levels due to fatigue from depleted carbohydrate intake. He added some carbohydrate snacks in between meals, which improved the fatigue. His ketone level has been < 0.5 mmol/L ever since, albeit his disease continues to be stable. The patient continues his daily work and reports a better QOL, based on the ECOG QLC-C30 form that he completed every 3 months.¹⁰ Currently, the patient is still receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab while maintaining the ketogenic diet with stable metastatic disease on PET/CT.

Ketogenic Diet and Cellular Mechanism of Action

PI3K/Akt (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase) signaling is one of the most important intracellular pathways for tumor cells. It leads to the inhibition of apoptosis and the promotion of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis. Deregulation of the PI3K pathway either via amplification of PI3K by tyrosine kinase growth factor receptors or inactivation of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), which is the negative regulator of the PI3K pathway, contributes to the development of cancer cells.¹¹

A study by Goncalves and colleagues revealed an interesting relationship between the PI3K pathway and the benefit of the ketogenic diet to slow tumor growth. PI3K inhibitors inhibit glucose uptake into skeletal muscle and adipose tissue that activate hepatic glycogenolysis. This event results in hyperglycemia due to the pancreas releasing very high levels of insulin into the blood (hyperinsulinemia) that subsequently reactivate PI3K signaling and cause resistance to PI3K inhibitors. The ketogenic diet reportedly minimized the hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia induced by the PI3K inhibitor and enhanced the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors in tumor models. Studies combining PI3K inhibitors and ketogenic diet are underway. Hence, combining the ketogenic diet with chemotherapy or other novel treatment should be the focus of ketogenic diet trials.^12,13

 

 

Ketogenic Diet and Oncology Studies

The impact of the ketogenic diet on the growth of murine pancreatic tumors was evaluated by Yang and colleagues. The ketogenic diet decreased glucose concentration that enters the TCA cycle and increased fatty acid oxidation that produces β-hydroxybutyrate. This event promotes the generation of ATP, although with only modest elevations of NADH with less impact on tumor growth. The combination of ketogenic diet and standard chemotherapy substantially raised tumor NADH and suppressed the growth of murine tumor cells, they noted.¹⁴ Furukawa and colleagues compared 10 patients with metastatic colon cancer receiving chemotherapy plus the modified medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet for 1 year with 14 patients receiving chemotherapy only. The ketogenic diet group exhibited a response rate of 60% with 5 patients achieving a complete response and a disease control rate of 70%, while the chemotherapy-alone group showed a response rate of only 21% with no complete response and a disease control rate of 64%.¹⁵

The ketogenic diet also reportedly stimulates cytokine and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell production that stimulates T-cell killing activity. The ketogenic diet may overcome several immune escape mechanisms by downregulating the expression of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.¹⁶ Our patient tolerated the combination of the ketogenic diet with ipilimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) without significant toxicities and stabilization of his disease.

Future Directions

We originally presented the abstract and poster of this case report at the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology annual meeting in San Diego, California, in September 2022.¹⁷ Based on our previous experience, we are now using a modified Atkins diet, which is a less strict diet consisting of 60% fat, 30% protein, and 10% carbohydrates combined with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. The composition of fat to carbohydrate plus protein in the traditional ketogenic diet is usually 4:1 or 3:1, while in modified Atkins diet the ratio is 1:1 or 2:1. The benefit of the modified Atkins diet is that patients can consume more protein than a strict ketogenic diet and they can be more liberal in carbohydrate allowances. We are about to open a study protocol of combining a modified Atkin diet and chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for veterans with all types of advanced or metastatic solid tumors at VACCHCS. The study protocol was approved by the VA Office of Research and Development and has been submitted to the VACCHCS Institutional Review Board for review. Once approved, we will start patient recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cells have defects in their mitochondria that prevent them from generating energy for metabolism in the absence of glucose. They also depend on the PI3K signaling pathway to survive. The ketogenic diet has the advantage of affecting cancer cell growth by exploiting these mitochondrial defects and blocking hyperglycemia. There is growing evidence that the ketogenic diet is feasible, tolerable, and reportedly inhibits cancer growth. Our case report and previous publications suggest that the ketogenic diet can be added to chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care cancer treatment while maintaining good QOL. We are planning to open a clinical trial using the modified Atkins diet in conjunction with active cancer treatments as first-line therapy for metastatic solid tumors at the VACCHCS. We are also working closely with researchers from several veteran hospitals to do a diet collaborative study. We believe the ketogenic diet is an important part of cancer treatment and has a promising future. More research should be dedicated to this very interesting field.

Acknowledgments

We previously presented this case report in an abstract and poster at the September 2022 AVAHO meeting in San Diego, California.

Originally developed for the treatment of refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is distinguished by its high-fat, moderate-protein, and low-carbohydrate food program. Preclinical models provide emerging evidence that a ketogenic diet can have therapeutic potential for a broad range of cancers. The Warburg effect is a condition where cancer cells increase the uptake and fermentation of glucose to produce lactate for their metabolism, which is called aerobic glycolysis. Lactate is the key driver of cancer angiogenesis and proliferation.^1,2

The ketogenic diet promotes a metabolic shift from glycolysis to mitochondrial metabolism in normal cells while cancer cells have dysfunction in their mitochondria due to damage in cellular respiration. The ketogenic diet creates a metabolic state whereby blood glucose levels are reduced, and blood ketone bodies (D-β-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) are elevated. In normal cells, the ketogenic diet causes a decrease in glucose intake for glycolysis, which makes them unable to produce enough substrate to enter the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. Fatty acid oxidation plays a key role in ketone body synthesis as a “super fuel” that enter the TCA cycle as an alternative pathway to generate ATP. On the other hand, cancer cells are unable to use ketone bodies to produce ATP for energy and metabolism due to mitochondrial defects. Lack of energy subsequently leads to the inhibition of proliferation and survival of cancer cells.^3,4

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old veteran had iron deficiency anemia (hemoglobin, 6.5 g/dL) about 5 years previously. He underwent a colonoscopy that revealed a near circumferential ulcerated mass measuring 7 cm in the transverse colon. Biopsy results showed mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon with a foci of signet ring cells (Figure 2).

The patient received adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and oxaliplatin), but within several months he developed pancreatic and worsening omental metastasis seen on PET/CT. He was then started on FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin calcium, and irinotecan hydrochloride) plus bevacizumab 16 months after his initial diagnosis. He underwent a pancreatic mastectomy that confirmed adenocarcinoma 9 months later. Afterward, he briefly resumed FOLFIRI and bevacizumab. Next-generation sequencing testing with Foundation One CDx revealed a wild-type (WT) KRAS with a high degree of tumor mutation burden of 37 muts/Mb, BRAF V600E mutation, and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H).