User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Severe COVID-19–related outcomes found worse in men with RA
A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.
“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.
Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.
Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.
A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).
Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).
Sex hormones factor into risk
The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.
Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.
Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.
By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.
Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities
The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.
Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.
Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.
In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.
“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.
Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.
Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.
A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).
Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).
Sex hormones factor into risk
The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.
Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.
Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.
By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.
Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities
The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.
Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.
Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.
In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.
“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.
Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.
Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.
A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).
Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).
Sex hormones factor into risk
The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.
Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.
Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.
By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.
Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities
The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.
Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.
Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.
In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET SUMMIT ON SEX AND GENDER IN RHEUMATOLOGY
Consider the mnemonic ‘CLEAR’ when counseling acne patients
to use when treating this group of patients.
During a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, Dr. Harper, who practices at Dermatology and Skin Care of Birmingham, Ala., elaborated on the mnemonic, as follows:
C: Communicate expectations. “I look right at the acne patient and say, ‘I know you don’t just want to be better; I know you want to be clear,’ ” she said at the meeting. “ ‘That’s my goal for you, too. That may take us more than one visit and more than one treatment, but I am on your team, and that’s what we’re shooting for.’ If you don’t communicate that, they’re going to think that their acne is not that important to you.”
L: Listen for clues to customize the patient’s treatment. “We’re quick to say, ‘my patients don’t do what I recommend,’ or ‘they didn’t do what the last doctor recommended,’ ” Dr. Harper said. “Sometimes that is true, but there may be a reason why. Maybe the medication was too expensive. Maybe it was bleaching their fabrics. Maybe the regimen was too complex. Listen for opportunities to make adjustments to get their acne closer to clear.”
E: Treat early to improve quality of life and to decrease the risk of scarring. “I have a laser in my practice that is good at treating acne scarring,” she said. “Do I ever look at my patient and say, ‘don’t worry about those scars; I can make them go away?’ No. I look at them and say, ‘we can maybe make this 40% better,’ something like that. We have to prevent acne scars, because we’re not good at treating them.”
A: Treat aggressively with more combination therapies, more hormonal therapies, more isotretinoin, and perhaps more prior authorizations. She characterized the effort to obtain a prior authorization as “our megaphone back to insurance companies that says, ‘we think it is worth taking the time to do this prior authorization because the acne patient will benefit.’ ”
R: Don’t resist isotretinoin. Dr. Harper, who began practicing dermatology more than 20 years ago, said that over time, she has gradually prescribed more isotretinoin for her patients with acne. “It’s not a first-line [treatment], but I’m not afraid of it. If I can’t get somebody clear on other oral or topical treatments, we are going to try isotretinoin.”
The goal of acne treatment, she added, is to affect four key aspects of pathogenesis: follicular epithelial hyperproliferation, inflammation, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and sebum. “That’s what we’re always shooting for,” she said.
Dr. Harper is a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society. She disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
to use when treating this group of patients.
During a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, Dr. Harper, who practices at Dermatology and Skin Care of Birmingham, Ala., elaborated on the mnemonic, as follows:
C: Communicate expectations. “I look right at the acne patient and say, ‘I know you don’t just want to be better; I know you want to be clear,’ ” she said at the meeting. “ ‘That’s my goal for you, too. That may take us more than one visit and more than one treatment, but I am on your team, and that’s what we’re shooting for.’ If you don’t communicate that, they’re going to think that their acne is not that important to you.”
L: Listen for clues to customize the patient’s treatment. “We’re quick to say, ‘my patients don’t do what I recommend,’ or ‘they didn’t do what the last doctor recommended,’ ” Dr. Harper said. “Sometimes that is true, but there may be a reason why. Maybe the medication was too expensive. Maybe it was bleaching their fabrics. Maybe the regimen was too complex. Listen for opportunities to make adjustments to get their acne closer to clear.”
E: Treat early to improve quality of life and to decrease the risk of scarring. “I have a laser in my practice that is good at treating acne scarring,” she said. “Do I ever look at my patient and say, ‘don’t worry about those scars; I can make them go away?’ No. I look at them and say, ‘we can maybe make this 40% better,’ something like that. We have to prevent acne scars, because we’re not good at treating them.”
A: Treat aggressively with more combination therapies, more hormonal therapies, more isotretinoin, and perhaps more prior authorizations. She characterized the effort to obtain a prior authorization as “our megaphone back to insurance companies that says, ‘we think it is worth taking the time to do this prior authorization because the acne patient will benefit.’ ”
R: Don’t resist isotretinoin. Dr. Harper, who began practicing dermatology more than 20 years ago, said that over time, she has gradually prescribed more isotretinoin for her patients with acne. “It’s not a first-line [treatment], but I’m not afraid of it. If I can’t get somebody clear on other oral or topical treatments, we are going to try isotretinoin.”
The goal of acne treatment, she added, is to affect four key aspects of pathogenesis: follicular epithelial hyperproliferation, inflammation, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and sebum. “That’s what we’re always shooting for,” she said.
Dr. Harper is a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society. She disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
to use when treating this group of patients.
During a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, Dr. Harper, who practices at Dermatology and Skin Care of Birmingham, Ala., elaborated on the mnemonic, as follows:
C: Communicate expectations. “I look right at the acne patient and say, ‘I know you don’t just want to be better; I know you want to be clear,’ ” she said at the meeting. “ ‘That’s my goal for you, too. That may take us more than one visit and more than one treatment, but I am on your team, and that’s what we’re shooting for.’ If you don’t communicate that, they’re going to think that their acne is not that important to you.”
L: Listen for clues to customize the patient’s treatment. “We’re quick to say, ‘my patients don’t do what I recommend,’ or ‘they didn’t do what the last doctor recommended,’ ” Dr. Harper said. “Sometimes that is true, but there may be a reason why. Maybe the medication was too expensive. Maybe it was bleaching their fabrics. Maybe the regimen was too complex. Listen for opportunities to make adjustments to get their acne closer to clear.”
E: Treat early to improve quality of life and to decrease the risk of scarring. “I have a laser in my practice that is good at treating acne scarring,” she said. “Do I ever look at my patient and say, ‘don’t worry about those scars; I can make them go away?’ No. I look at them and say, ‘we can maybe make this 40% better,’ something like that. We have to prevent acne scars, because we’re not good at treating them.”
A: Treat aggressively with more combination therapies, more hormonal therapies, more isotretinoin, and perhaps more prior authorizations. She characterized the effort to obtain a prior authorization as “our megaphone back to insurance companies that says, ‘we think it is worth taking the time to do this prior authorization because the acne patient will benefit.’ ”
R: Don’t resist isotretinoin. Dr. Harper, who began practicing dermatology more than 20 years ago, said that over time, she has gradually prescribed more isotretinoin for her patients with acne. “It’s not a first-line [treatment], but I’m not afraid of it. If I can’t get somebody clear on other oral or topical treatments, we are going to try isotretinoin.”
The goal of acne treatment, she added, is to affect four key aspects of pathogenesis: follicular epithelial hyperproliferation, inflammation, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and sebum. “That’s what we’re always shooting for,” she said.
Dr. Harper is a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society. She disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM MEDSCAPE LIVE COASTAL DERM
Type 1 diabetes cases poised to double worldwide by 2040
STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.
The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.
The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.
“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s
The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.
According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.
“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.
By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood
Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.
“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”
“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.
And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”
The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.
“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.
The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.
The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.
The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.
“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s
The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.
According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.
“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.
By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood
Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.
“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”
“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.
And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”
The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.
“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.
The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.
The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.
The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.
“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s
The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.
According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.
“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.
By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood
Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.
“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”
“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.
And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”
The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.
“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.
The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2022
Cre8 EVO stent loses sweet spot in diabetes at 2 years: SUGAR
BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.
The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.
At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).
Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).
Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”
Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.
Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.
During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”
Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.
Roxana Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who previously described the 1-year results as “almost too good to be true,” commented to this news organization, “We just saw in this trial, no benefit whatsoever at 2 years in terms of target lesion failure. So it’s very important for us to evaluate this going forward.”
She continued, “We’ve always been talking about these biodegradable polymers and then going back to the bare metal stent – oh that’s great because polymers aren’t so good – but now we’re seeing durable polymers may be okay, especially with the current technology.”
Asked whether Cre8 EVO, which is CE mark certified in Europe, remains an option in light of the new results, Dr. Mehran said, “I don’t think it kills it. It’s not worse; it’s another stent that’s available.”
Nevertheless, “what we’re looking for is some efficacious benefit for diabetic patients. We don’t have one yet,” observed Dr. Mehran, who is leading the ABILITY Diabetes Global trial, which just finished enrolling 3,000 patients with diabetes and is testing PCI with the Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent system vs. the Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The study is estimated to be complete in August 2024.
The study was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Salinas reported consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biomenco, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.
The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.
At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).
Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).
Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”
Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.
Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.
During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”
Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.
Roxana Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who previously described the 1-year results as “almost too good to be true,” commented to this news organization, “We just saw in this trial, no benefit whatsoever at 2 years in terms of target lesion failure. So it’s very important for us to evaluate this going forward.”
She continued, “We’ve always been talking about these biodegradable polymers and then going back to the bare metal stent – oh that’s great because polymers aren’t so good – but now we’re seeing durable polymers may be okay, especially with the current technology.”
Asked whether Cre8 EVO, which is CE mark certified in Europe, remains an option in light of the new results, Dr. Mehran said, “I don’t think it kills it. It’s not worse; it’s another stent that’s available.”
Nevertheless, “what we’re looking for is some efficacious benefit for diabetic patients. We don’t have one yet,” observed Dr. Mehran, who is leading the ABILITY Diabetes Global trial, which just finished enrolling 3,000 patients with diabetes and is testing PCI with the Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent system vs. the Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The study is estimated to be complete in August 2024.
The study was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Salinas reported consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biomenco, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON – Despite a promising start, extended follow-up from the SUGAR trial found that the Cre8 EVO drug-eluting stent could not maintain superiority over the Resolute Onyx DES at 2 years in patients with diabetes undergoing revascularization for coronary artery disease.
The Cre8 EVO stent (Alvimedica) is not available in the United States but, as previously reported, caused a stir last year after demonstrating a 35% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 1 year in a prespecified superiority analysis.
At 2 years, however, the TLF rate was 10.4% with the polymer-free Cre8 EVO amphilimus-eluting stent and 12.1% with the durable polymer Resolute Onyx (Medtronic) zotarolimus-eluting stent, which did not achieve superiority (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.19).
Rates were numerically lower with the Cre8 EVO stent for the endpoint’s individual components of cardiac death (3.1% vs. 3.4%), target vessel MI (6.6% vs. 7.6%), and target lesion revascularization (4.3% vs. 4.6%).
Results were also similar between the Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents for all-cause mortality (7.1% vs. 6.8%), any MI (9.0% vs. 9.2%), target vessel revascularization (5.5% vs. 5.1%), all new revascularizations (7.6% vs. 9.4%), definite stent thrombosis (1.0% vs. 1.2%), and major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs. 20.8%), Pablo Salinas, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
He noted that all-cause mortality was 7% in just 2 years in the diabetic cohort, or twice the number of cardiac deaths. “In other words, these patients had the same chance of dying from cardiac causes and noncardiac causes, so we need a more comprehensive approach to the disease. Also, if you look at all new revascularizations, roughly 50% were off target, so there is disease progression at 2 years in this population.”
Among the 586 Cre8 EVO and 589 Resolute Onyx patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), roughly half had multivessel coronary artery disease, 83% had hypertension, 81% had dyslipidemia, and 21% were current smokers. Nearly all patients had diabetes type 2 for an average of 10.6 years for Cre8 EVO and 11.4 years for Resolute Onyx, with hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.4% and 7.5%, respectively.
Although there is “insufficient evidence” the Cre8 EVO stent is superior to the Resolute Onyx stent with regard to TLF, Dr. Salinas concluded extended follow-up until 5 years is warranted.
During a discussion of the results, Dr. Salinas said he expects the 5-year results will “probably go parallel” but that it’s worth following this very valuable cohort. “There are not so many trials with 1,000 diabetic patients. We always speak about how complex they are, the results are bad, but we don’t use the diabetic population in trials,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Asked during a TCT press conference what could have caused the catch-up in TLF at 2 years, Dr. Salinas said there were only 25 primary events from years 1 to 2, driven primarily by periprocedural MI, but that the timing of restenosis was different. Events accrued “drop by drop” with the Cre8 EVO, whereas with the Resolute Onyx there was a “bump in restenosis” after 6 months “but then it is very nice to see it is flat, which means that durable polymers are also safe because we have not seen late events.”
Press conference discussant Carlo Di Mario, MD, from Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, who was not involved in the study, said the reversal of superiority for the Cre8 EVO might be a “bitter note” for the investigators but “maybe it is not bitter for us because overall, the percentage of figures are so low that it’s very difficult to find a difference” between the two stents.
Roxana Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who previously described the 1-year results as “almost too good to be true,” commented to this news organization, “We just saw in this trial, no benefit whatsoever at 2 years in terms of target lesion failure. So it’s very important for us to evaluate this going forward.”
She continued, “We’ve always been talking about these biodegradable polymers and then going back to the bare metal stent – oh that’s great because polymers aren’t so good – but now we’re seeing durable polymers may be okay, especially with the current technology.”
Asked whether Cre8 EVO, which is CE mark certified in Europe, remains an option in light of the new results, Dr. Mehran said, “I don’t think it kills it. It’s not worse; it’s another stent that’s available.”
Nevertheless, “what we’re looking for is some efficacious benefit for diabetic patients. We don’t have one yet,” observed Dr. Mehran, who is leading the ABILITY Diabetes Global trial, which just finished enrolling 3,000 patients with diabetes and is testing PCI with the Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent system vs. the Xience everolimus-eluting stent. The study is estimated to be complete in August 2024.
The study was funded by the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Salinas reported consulting fees/honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Biomenco, and Medtronic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT TCT 2022
Emphasis on weight loss in new type 2 diabetes guidance
STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.
Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.
The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.
During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”
“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment
In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”
“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.
“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”
According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”
“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
Individualization featured throughout
The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.
Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.
The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
Designed to be used and user-friendly
Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.
A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.
Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.
Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.
Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.
The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.
During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”
“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment
In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”
“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.
“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”
According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”
“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
Individualization featured throughout
The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.
Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.
The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
Designed to be used and user-friendly
Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.
A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.
Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.
Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.
And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.
Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.
The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.
During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”
“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment
In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”
“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.
“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”
According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”
“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
Individualization featured throughout
The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.
Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.
The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
Designed to be used and user-friendly
Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.
A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.
Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.
Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2022
Neoadjuvant immunotherapy shows promise for resectable CSCC
according to results from a stage 2 clinical trial.
CSCC hasn’t received much attention from pharmaceutical companies, in part because it so often responds well to surgery or local therapy. Still, some patients develop more advanced cancer that requires surgery, often on exposed surfaces like the scalp, face, or neck. That can lead to cosmetic and functional impairment.
“Having witnessed the toxicity of treatments over time has really kind of kind of pushed me for a long time to seek better ways to treat this,” lead author Neil Gross, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gross is director of clinical research in the department of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Gross and colleagues conducted a pilot study that examined neoadjuvant immunotherapy with cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron). It received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was to determine how cells responded to the therapy and learn more about the biology, but the results turned heads. “We were surprised to learn just how well the patients responded, Over half of the patients had a complete pathologic response to treatment, and another 4 patients out of 20 had a near-complete pathological response. It prompted a multicenter trial to confirm whether or not what we’re seeing was real,” Dr. Gross said.
The new phase 2 study, conducted in 79 patients at centers in Australia, Germany, and the United States, was encouraging. “The results were very, very similar. About 63% overall had this really impressive pathologic response to treatment. And, it may even be an underestimation of the responses because there were several patients in the trial who responded so well that they refused surgery. Those patients were counted as nonresponders just to be most conservative,” Dr. Gross said.
“I think it will change practice. The results are just so dramatic that it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to influence how patients are treated,” he said.
Dramatic results and an attractive option
Among 79 patients in the new trial, the median age was 73 years, 85% were male, and 87% were White. About 91% of primary tumors were head and neck; 6% were stage II, 48% stage III, and 46% stage IV. All patients received four doses of 350 mg cemiplimab at 3-week intervals.
After a median follow-up of 9.7 months (range, 1.3-19.6 months), 51% achieved a pathological complete response (95% confidence interval, 39%-62%). The null hypothesis was that 25% would achieve a pathologic response. An additional 13% had a pathological major response (95% CI, 6%-22%). 25% did not achieve a pathological complete or pathological major response, which was defined as viable tumor cells representing at least 10% of the surgical specimen.
72% of patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to treatment, most commonly fatigue (28%), maculopapular rash (14%), and diarrhea (11%). 15% of patients experienced immune-related adverse events. 4% experienced a grade 3 immune-related adverse event.
Despite the encouraging results, more research needs to be done. One key question is the optimal number of treatments prior to surgery. The pilot study used two doses while the phase 2 study used four doses. Another is whether the surgical excision can be safely reduced after treatment to reduce morbidity, and still another is whether some patients can avoid radiation. “There are lots of unanswered questions that are really important to how this gets rolled out into clinical practice, but I do think that there’s no turning back. The results are so dramatic that it’s a very attractive option to patients and providers. We will have to figure out how to learn the best way to use this in practice while it’s being used,” Dr. Gross said.
Additional studies are in the planning phase, though the results are so encouraging that they might hinder future research. “Will patients be willing in the future to be randomized to the current standard of care, which would be upfront surgery and radiation for advanced disease? I don’t know. There’s a lot of thought being put into the best way to design these studies moving forward that are really advantageous to patients, but still answer these some of these fundamental questions,” Dr. Gross said.
He also noted that these studies looked at pathological responses, not overall survival or clinical outcomes. “We believe that these responses will be durable, but this has to be borne out as the data matures.”
The study was funded by Regeneron. Dr. Gross has consulted for DragonFly Therapeutics, Intuitive Surgical, Regeneron, and Sanofi/Genzyme. He has been on scientific advisory boards for PDS Biotechnology and Shattuck Labs.
according to results from a stage 2 clinical trial.
CSCC hasn’t received much attention from pharmaceutical companies, in part because it so often responds well to surgery or local therapy. Still, some patients develop more advanced cancer that requires surgery, often on exposed surfaces like the scalp, face, or neck. That can lead to cosmetic and functional impairment.
“Having witnessed the toxicity of treatments over time has really kind of kind of pushed me for a long time to seek better ways to treat this,” lead author Neil Gross, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gross is director of clinical research in the department of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Gross and colleagues conducted a pilot study that examined neoadjuvant immunotherapy with cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron). It received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was to determine how cells responded to the therapy and learn more about the biology, but the results turned heads. “We were surprised to learn just how well the patients responded, Over half of the patients had a complete pathologic response to treatment, and another 4 patients out of 20 had a near-complete pathological response. It prompted a multicenter trial to confirm whether or not what we’re seeing was real,” Dr. Gross said.
The new phase 2 study, conducted in 79 patients at centers in Australia, Germany, and the United States, was encouraging. “The results were very, very similar. About 63% overall had this really impressive pathologic response to treatment. And, it may even be an underestimation of the responses because there were several patients in the trial who responded so well that they refused surgery. Those patients were counted as nonresponders just to be most conservative,” Dr. Gross said.
“I think it will change practice. The results are just so dramatic that it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to influence how patients are treated,” he said.
Dramatic results and an attractive option
Among 79 patients in the new trial, the median age was 73 years, 85% were male, and 87% were White. About 91% of primary tumors were head and neck; 6% were stage II, 48% stage III, and 46% stage IV. All patients received four doses of 350 mg cemiplimab at 3-week intervals.
After a median follow-up of 9.7 months (range, 1.3-19.6 months), 51% achieved a pathological complete response (95% confidence interval, 39%-62%). The null hypothesis was that 25% would achieve a pathologic response. An additional 13% had a pathological major response (95% CI, 6%-22%). 25% did not achieve a pathological complete or pathological major response, which was defined as viable tumor cells representing at least 10% of the surgical specimen.
72% of patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to treatment, most commonly fatigue (28%), maculopapular rash (14%), and diarrhea (11%). 15% of patients experienced immune-related adverse events. 4% experienced a grade 3 immune-related adverse event.
Despite the encouraging results, more research needs to be done. One key question is the optimal number of treatments prior to surgery. The pilot study used two doses while the phase 2 study used four doses. Another is whether the surgical excision can be safely reduced after treatment to reduce morbidity, and still another is whether some patients can avoid radiation. “There are lots of unanswered questions that are really important to how this gets rolled out into clinical practice, but I do think that there’s no turning back. The results are so dramatic that it’s a very attractive option to patients and providers. We will have to figure out how to learn the best way to use this in practice while it’s being used,” Dr. Gross said.
Additional studies are in the planning phase, though the results are so encouraging that they might hinder future research. “Will patients be willing in the future to be randomized to the current standard of care, which would be upfront surgery and radiation for advanced disease? I don’t know. There’s a lot of thought being put into the best way to design these studies moving forward that are really advantageous to patients, but still answer these some of these fundamental questions,” Dr. Gross said.
He also noted that these studies looked at pathological responses, not overall survival or clinical outcomes. “We believe that these responses will be durable, but this has to be borne out as the data matures.”
The study was funded by Regeneron. Dr. Gross has consulted for DragonFly Therapeutics, Intuitive Surgical, Regeneron, and Sanofi/Genzyme. He has been on scientific advisory boards for PDS Biotechnology and Shattuck Labs.
according to results from a stage 2 clinical trial.
CSCC hasn’t received much attention from pharmaceutical companies, in part because it so often responds well to surgery or local therapy. Still, some patients develop more advanced cancer that requires surgery, often on exposed surfaces like the scalp, face, or neck. That can lead to cosmetic and functional impairment.
“Having witnessed the toxicity of treatments over time has really kind of kind of pushed me for a long time to seek better ways to treat this,” lead author Neil Gross, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gross is director of clinical research in the department of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Gross and colleagues conducted a pilot study that examined neoadjuvant immunotherapy with cemiplimab (Libtayo, Regeneron). It received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2018 for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The aim of the study was to determine how cells responded to the therapy and learn more about the biology, but the results turned heads. “We were surprised to learn just how well the patients responded, Over half of the patients had a complete pathologic response to treatment, and another 4 patients out of 20 had a near-complete pathological response. It prompted a multicenter trial to confirm whether or not what we’re seeing was real,” Dr. Gross said.
The new phase 2 study, conducted in 79 patients at centers in Australia, Germany, and the United States, was encouraging. “The results were very, very similar. About 63% overall had this really impressive pathologic response to treatment. And, it may even be an underestimation of the responses because there were several patients in the trial who responded so well that they refused surgery. Those patients were counted as nonresponders just to be most conservative,” Dr. Gross said.
“I think it will change practice. The results are just so dramatic that it’s hard to imagine it’s not going to influence how patients are treated,” he said.
Dramatic results and an attractive option
Among 79 patients in the new trial, the median age was 73 years, 85% were male, and 87% were White. About 91% of primary tumors were head and neck; 6% were stage II, 48% stage III, and 46% stage IV. All patients received four doses of 350 mg cemiplimab at 3-week intervals.
After a median follow-up of 9.7 months (range, 1.3-19.6 months), 51% achieved a pathological complete response (95% confidence interval, 39%-62%). The null hypothesis was that 25% would achieve a pathologic response. An additional 13% had a pathological major response (95% CI, 6%-22%). 25% did not achieve a pathological complete or pathological major response, which was defined as viable tumor cells representing at least 10% of the surgical specimen.
72% of patients experienced an adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to treatment, most commonly fatigue (28%), maculopapular rash (14%), and diarrhea (11%). 15% of patients experienced immune-related adverse events. 4% experienced a grade 3 immune-related adverse event.
Despite the encouraging results, more research needs to be done. One key question is the optimal number of treatments prior to surgery. The pilot study used two doses while the phase 2 study used four doses. Another is whether the surgical excision can be safely reduced after treatment to reduce morbidity, and still another is whether some patients can avoid radiation. “There are lots of unanswered questions that are really important to how this gets rolled out into clinical practice, but I do think that there’s no turning back. The results are so dramatic that it’s a very attractive option to patients and providers. We will have to figure out how to learn the best way to use this in practice while it’s being used,” Dr. Gross said.
Additional studies are in the planning phase, though the results are so encouraging that they might hinder future research. “Will patients be willing in the future to be randomized to the current standard of care, which would be upfront surgery and radiation for advanced disease? I don’t know. There’s a lot of thought being put into the best way to design these studies moving forward that are really advantageous to patients, but still answer these some of these fundamental questions,” Dr. Gross said.
He also noted that these studies looked at pathological responses, not overall survival or clinical outcomes. “We believe that these responses will be durable, but this has to be borne out as the data matures.”
The study was funded by Regeneron. Dr. Gross has consulted for DragonFly Therapeutics, Intuitive Surgical, Regeneron, and Sanofi/Genzyme. He has been on scientific advisory boards for PDS Biotechnology and Shattuck Labs.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2022
Add PCSK9 inhibitor to high-intensity statin at primary PCI, proposes sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI
It’s best to have patients on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy before discharge after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), so why not start it right away – even in the cath lab – using some of the most potent LDL cholesterol–lowering agents available?
That was a main idea behind the randomized, sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI trial, in which STEMI patients were started on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor immediately before direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on top of high-intensity statins.
Those in the trial getting the active agent showed a 22% drop in LDL cholesterol levels by 6 weeks, compared with the control group given a sham injection along with high-intensity statins. They were also more likely to meet LDL cholesterol goals specified in some guidelines, including reduction by at least 50%. And those outcomes were achieved regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels or prior statin use.
Adoption of the trial’s early, aggressive LDL cholesterolreduction strategy in practice “has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality” in such cases “by further reducing LDL beyond statins in a much greater number of high-risk patients than are currently being treated with these agents,” suggested principal investigator Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc, when presenting the findings at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Adherence to secondary prevention measures in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is much better if they are started before hospital discharge, explained Dr. Mehta, senior scientist with Population Health Research Institute and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But “as soon as the patient has left the hospital, it is much more difficult to get these therapies on board.”
Routine adoption of such aggressive in-hospital, lipid-lowering therapy for the vast population with ACS would likely mean far fewer deaths and cardiovascular events “across a broader patient population.”
EPIC-STEMI is among the first studies to explore the strategy. “I think that’s the point of the trial that we wanted to make, that we don’t yet have data on this. We’re treading very carefully with PCSK9 inhibitors, and it’s just inching forward in populations. And I think we need a bold trial to see whether or not this changes things.”
The PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent) was used in EPIC-STEMI, which was published in EuroIntervention, with Dr. Mehta as lead author, the same day as his presentation. The drug and its sham injection were given on top of either atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg.
Early initiation of statins in patients with acute STEMI has become standard, but there’s good evidence from intracoronary imaging studies suggesting that the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors might promote further stabilization of plaques that could potentially cause recurrent ischemic events.
Treatment with the injectable drugs plus statins led to significant coronary lesion regression in the GLAGOV trial of patients with stable coronary disease. And initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors with high-intensity statins soon after PCI for ACS improved atheroma shrinkage in non–infarct-related arteries over 1 year in the recent, placebo-controlled PACMAN-AMI trial.
Dr. Mehta pointed out that LDL reductions on PCSK9 inhibition, compared with the sham control, weren’t necessarily as impressive as might be expected from the major trials of long-term therapy with the drugs.
“You need longer [therapy] in order to see a difference in LDL levels when you use a PCSK9 inhibitor acutely. This is shown also on measures of infarct size.” There was no difference between treatment groups in infarct size as measured by levels of the MB fraction of creatine kinase, he reported.
“What this is telling us is that the acute use of a PCSK9 inhibitor did not modify the size or the severity of the baseline STEMI event.”
And EPIC-STEMI was too small and never intended to assess clinical outcomes; it was more about feasibility and what degree of LDL cholesterol lowering might be expected.
The trial was needed, Dr. Mehta said, because the PCSK9 inhibitors haven’t been extensively adopted into clinical practice and are not getting to the patients who could most benefit. One of the reasons for that is quite clear to him. “We are missing the high-risk patients because we are not treating them acutely,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview.
The strategy “has not yet been evaluated, and there have been barriers,” he observed. “Cost has been a barrier. Access to the drug has been a barrier. But in terms of the science, in terms of reducing cardiovascular events, this is a strategy that has to be tested.”
The aggressive, early LDL cholesterol reduction strategy should be evaluated for its effect on long-term outcomes, “especially knowing that in the first 30 days to 6 months post STEMI there’s a tremendous uptick in ischemic events, including recurrent myocardial infarction,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said at a media briefing on EPIC-STEMI held before Dr. Mehta’s formal presentation.
The “fantastic reduction acutely” with a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of statins, “hopefully reducing inflammation” similarly to what’s been observed in past trials, “absolutely warrants” a STEMI clinical outcomes trial, said Dr. Mehran, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who isn’t connected with EPIC-STEMI.
If better post-discharge medication adherence is one of the acute strategy’s goals, it will be important to consider the potential influence of prescribing a periodically injected drug, proposed Eric A. Cohen, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, at the press conference.
“Keep in mind that STEMI patients typically come to the hospital on zero medications and leave 2 days later on five medications,” Dr. Cohen observed. “I’m curious whether having one of those as a sub-Q injection every 2 weeks, and reducing the pill burden, will help or deter adherence to therapy. I think it’s worth studying.”
The trial originally included 97 patients undergoing PCI for STEMI who were randomly assigned to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor or a sham injection on top of high-intensity statins, without regard to LDL cholesterol levels. Randomization took place after diagnostic angiography but before PCI.
The analysis, however, subsequently excluded 29 patients who could not continue with the study, “mainly because of hospital research clinic closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the published report states.
That left 68 patients who had received at least one dose of PCSK9 inhibitor, alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously, or the sham injection, and had at least one blood draw for LDL cholesterol response which, Dr. Mehta said, still left adequate statistical power for the LDL cholesterol–based primary endpoint.
By 6 weeks, LDL cholesterol levels had fallen 72.9% in the active-therapy group and by 48.1% in the control group (P < .001). Also, 92.1% and 56.7% of patients, respectively (P = .002), had achieved levels below the 1.4 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) goal in the European guidelines, Dr. Mehta reported.
Levels fell more than 50% compared with baseline in 89.5% of alirocumab patients and 60% (P = .007) of controls, respectively.
There was no significant difference in rates of attaining LDL cholesterol levels below the 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) threshold specified in U.S. guidelines for very high-risk patients: 94.7% of alirocumab patients and 83.4% of controls (P = .26).
Nor did the groups differ significantly in natriuretic peptide levels, which reflect ventricular remodeling; or in 6-week change in the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
An open-label, randomized trial scheduled to launch before the end of 2022 will explore similarly early initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with standard lipid management, in an estimated 4,000 patients hospitalized with STEMI or non-STEMI.
The EVOLVE MI trial is looking at the monoclonal antibody evolocumab (Repatha) for its effect on the primary endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, arterial revascularization, or death from any cause over an expected 3-4 years.
EPIC-STEMI was supported in part by Sanofi. Dr. Mehta reported an unrestricted grant from Sanofi to Hamilton Health Sciences for the present study and consulting fees from Amgen, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving grant support from and holding research contracts with Abbott Vascular; and receiving fees for consulting, honoraria, or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Baylis. Dr. Mehran disclosed receiving grants or research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies; receiving consultant fee or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Janssen, Medtronic, Medscape/WebMD, and Cine-Med Research; and holding equity, stock, or stock options with Control Rad, Applied Therapeutics, and Elixir Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s best to have patients on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy before discharge after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), so why not start it right away – even in the cath lab – using some of the most potent LDL cholesterol–lowering agents available?
That was a main idea behind the randomized, sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI trial, in which STEMI patients were started on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor immediately before direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on top of high-intensity statins.
Those in the trial getting the active agent showed a 22% drop in LDL cholesterol levels by 6 weeks, compared with the control group given a sham injection along with high-intensity statins. They were also more likely to meet LDL cholesterol goals specified in some guidelines, including reduction by at least 50%. And those outcomes were achieved regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels or prior statin use.
Adoption of the trial’s early, aggressive LDL cholesterolreduction strategy in practice “has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality” in such cases “by further reducing LDL beyond statins in a much greater number of high-risk patients than are currently being treated with these agents,” suggested principal investigator Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc, when presenting the findings at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Adherence to secondary prevention measures in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is much better if they are started before hospital discharge, explained Dr. Mehta, senior scientist with Population Health Research Institute and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But “as soon as the patient has left the hospital, it is much more difficult to get these therapies on board.”
Routine adoption of such aggressive in-hospital, lipid-lowering therapy for the vast population with ACS would likely mean far fewer deaths and cardiovascular events “across a broader patient population.”
EPIC-STEMI is among the first studies to explore the strategy. “I think that’s the point of the trial that we wanted to make, that we don’t yet have data on this. We’re treading very carefully with PCSK9 inhibitors, and it’s just inching forward in populations. And I think we need a bold trial to see whether or not this changes things.”
The PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent) was used in EPIC-STEMI, which was published in EuroIntervention, with Dr. Mehta as lead author, the same day as his presentation. The drug and its sham injection were given on top of either atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg.
Early initiation of statins in patients with acute STEMI has become standard, but there’s good evidence from intracoronary imaging studies suggesting that the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors might promote further stabilization of plaques that could potentially cause recurrent ischemic events.
Treatment with the injectable drugs plus statins led to significant coronary lesion regression in the GLAGOV trial of patients with stable coronary disease. And initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors with high-intensity statins soon after PCI for ACS improved atheroma shrinkage in non–infarct-related arteries over 1 year in the recent, placebo-controlled PACMAN-AMI trial.
Dr. Mehta pointed out that LDL reductions on PCSK9 inhibition, compared with the sham control, weren’t necessarily as impressive as might be expected from the major trials of long-term therapy with the drugs.
“You need longer [therapy] in order to see a difference in LDL levels when you use a PCSK9 inhibitor acutely. This is shown also on measures of infarct size.” There was no difference between treatment groups in infarct size as measured by levels of the MB fraction of creatine kinase, he reported.
“What this is telling us is that the acute use of a PCSK9 inhibitor did not modify the size or the severity of the baseline STEMI event.”
And EPIC-STEMI was too small and never intended to assess clinical outcomes; it was more about feasibility and what degree of LDL cholesterol lowering might be expected.
The trial was needed, Dr. Mehta said, because the PCSK9 inhibitors haven’t been extensively adopted into clinical practice and are not getting to the patients who could most benefit. One of the reasons for that is quite clear to him. “We are missing the high-risk patients because we are not treating them acutely,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview.
The strategy “has not yet been evaluated, and there have been barriers,” he observed. “Cost has been a barrier. Access to the drug has been a barrier. But in terms of the science, in terms of reducing cardiovascular events, this is a strategy that has to be tested.”
The aggressive, early LDL cholesterol reduction strategy should be evaluated for its effect on long-term outcomes, “especially knowing that in the first 30 days to 6 months post STEMI there’s a tremendous uptick in ischemic events, including recurrent myocardial infarction,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said at a media briefing on EPIC-STEMI held before Dr. Mehta’s formal presentation.
The “fantastic reduction acutely” with a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of statins, “hopefully reducing inflammation” similarly to what’s been observed in past trials, “absolutely warrants” a STEMI clinical outcomes trial, said Dr. Mehran, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who isn’t connected with EPIC-STEMI.
If better post-discharge medication adherence is one of the acute strategy’s goals, it will be important to consider the potential influence of prescribing a periodically injected drug, proposed Eric A. Cohen, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, at the press conference.
“Keep in mind that STEMI patients typically come to the hospital on zero medications and leave 2 days later on five medications,” Dr. Cohen observed. “I’m curious whether having one of those as a sub-Q injection every 2 weeks, and reducing the pill burden, will help or deter adherence to therapy. I think it’s worth studying.”
The trial originally included 97 patients undergoing PCI for STEMI who were randomly assigned to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor or a sham injection on top of high-intensity statins, without regard to LDL cholesterol levels. Randomization took place after diagnostic angiography but before PCI.
The analysis, however, subsequently excluded 29 patients who could not continue with the study, “mainly because of hospital research clinic closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the published report states.
That left 68 patients who had received at least one dose of PCSK9 inhibitor, alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously, or the sham injection, and had at least one blood draw for LDL cholesterol response which, Dr. Mehta said, still left adequate statistical power for the LDL cholesterol–based primary endpoint.
By 6 weeks, LDL cholesterol levels had fallen 72.9% in the active-therapy group and by 48.1% in the control group (P < .001). Also, 92.1% and 56.7% of patients, respectively (P = .002), had achieved levels below the 1.4 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) goal in the European guidelines, Dr. Mehta reported.
Levels fell more than 50% compared with baseline in 89.5% of alirocumab patients and 60% (P = .007) of controls, respectively.
There was no significant difference in rates of attaining LDL cholesterol levels below the 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) threshold specified in U.S. guidelines for very high-risk patients: 94.7% of alirocumab patients and 83.4% of controls (P = .26).
Nor did the groups differ significantly in natriuretic peptide levels, which reflect ventricular remodeling; or in 6-week change in the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
An open-label, randomized trial scheduled to launch before the end of 2022 will explore similarly early initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with standard lipid management, in an estimated 4,000 patients hospitalized with STEMI or non-STEMI.
The EVOLVE MI trial is looking at the monoclonal antibody evolocumab (Repatha) for its effect on the primary endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, arterial revascularization, or death from any cause over an expected 3-4 years.
EPIC-STEMI was supported in part by Sanofi. Dr. Mehta reported an unrestricted grant from Sanofi to Hamilton Health Sciences for the present study and consulting fees from Amgen, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving grant support from and holding research contracts with Abbott Vascular; and receiving fees for consulting, honoraria, or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Baylis. Dr. Mehran disclosed receiving grants or research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies; receiving consultant fee or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Janssen, Medtronic, Medscape/WebMD, and Cine-Med Research; and holding equity, stock, or stock options with Control Rad, Applied Therapeutics, and Elixir Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s best to have patients on aggressive lipid-lowering therapy before discharge after an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), so why not start it right away – even in the cath lab – using some of the most potent LDL cholesterol–lowering agents available?
That was a main idea behind the randomized, sham-controlled EPIC-STEMI trial, in which STEMI patients were started on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor immediately before direct percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on top of high-intensity statins.
Those in the trial getting the active agent showed a 22% drop in LDL cholesterol levels by 6 weeks, compared with the control group given a sham injection along with high-intensity statins. They were also more likely to meet LDL cholesterol goals specified in some guidelines, including reduction by at least 50%. And those outcomes were achieved regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels or prior statin use.
Adoption of the trial’s early, aggressive LDL cholesterolreduction strategy in practice “has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality” in such cases “by further reducing LDL beyond statins in a much greater number of high-risk patients than are currently being treated with these agents,” suggested principal investigator Shamir R. Mehta, MD, MSc, when presenting the findings at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Adherence to secondary prevention measures in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is much better if they are started before hospital discharge, explained Dr. Mehta, senior scientist with Population Health Research Institute and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But “as soon as the patient has left the hospital, it is much more difficult to get these therapies on board.”
Routine adoption of such aggressive in-hospital, lipid-lowering therapy for the vast population with ACS would likely mean far fewer deaths and cardiovascular events “across a broader patient population.”
EPIC-STEMI is among the first studies to explore the strategy. “I think that’s the point of the trial that we wanted to make, that we don’t yet have data on this. We’re treading very carefully with PCSK9 inhibitors, and it’s just inching forward in populations. And I think we need a bold trial to see whether or not this changes things.”
The PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent) was used in EPIC-STEMI, which was published in EuroIntervention, with Dr. Mehta as lead author, the same day as his presentation. The drug and its sham injection were given on top of either atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg.
Early initiation of statins in patients with acute STEMI has become standard, but there’s good evidence from intracoronary imaging studies suggesting that the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors might promote further stabilization of plaques that could potentially cause recurrent ischemic events.
Treatment with the injectable drugs plus statins led to significant coronary lesion regression in the GLAGOV trial of patients with stable coronary disease. And initiation of PCSK9 inhibitors with high-intensity statins soon after PCI for ACS improved atheroma shrinkage in non–infarct-related arteries over 1 year in the recent, placebo-controlled PACMAN-AMI trial.
Dr. Mehta pointed out that LDL reductions on PCSK9 inhibition, compared with the sham control, weren’t necessarily as impressive as might be expected from the major trials of long-term therapy with the drugs.
“You need longer [therapy] in order to see a difference in LDL levels when you use a PCSK9 inhibitor acutely. This is shown also on measures of infarct size.” There was no difference between treatment groups in infarct size as measured by levels of the MB fraction of creatine kinase, he reported.
“What this is telling us is that the acute use of a PCSK9 inhibitor did not modify the size or the severity of the baseline STEMI event.”
And EPIC-STEMI was too small and never intended to assess clinical outcomes; it was more about feasibility and what degree of LDL cholesterol lowering might be expected.
The trial was needed, Dr. Mehta said, because the PCSK9 inhibitors haven’t been extensively adopted into clinical practice and are not getting to the patients who could most benefit. One of the reasons for that is quite clear to him. “We are missing the high-risk patients because we are not treating them acutely,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview.
The strategy “has not yet been evaluated, and there have been barriers,” he observed. “Cost has been a barrier. Access to the drug has been a barrier. But in terms of the science, in terms of reducing cardiovascular events, this is a strategy that has to be tested.”
The aggressive, early LDL cholesterol reduction strategy should be evaluated for its effect on long-term outcomes, “especially knowing that in the first 30 days to 6 months post STEMI there’s a tremendous uptick in ischemic events, including recurrent myocardial infarction,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said at a media briefing on EPIC-STEMI held before Dr. Mehta’s formal presentation.
The “fantastic reduction acutely” with a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of statins, “hopefully reducing inflammation” similarly to what’s been observed in past trials, “absolutely warrants” a STEMI clinical outcomes trial, said Dr. Mehran, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who isn’t connected with EPIC-STEMI.
If better post-discharge medication adherence is one of the acute strategy’s goals, it will be important to consider the potential influence of prescribing a periodically injected drug, proposed Eric A. Cohen, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, at the press conference.
“Keep in mind that STEMI patients typically come to the hospital on zero medications and leave 2 days later on five medications,” Dr. Cohen observed. “I’m curious whether having one of those as a sub-Q injection every 2 weeks, and reducing the pill burden, will help or deter adherence to therapy. I think it’s worth studying.”
The trial originally included 97 patients undergoing PCI for STEMI who were randomly assigned to receive the PCSK9 inhibitor or a sham injection on top of high-intensity statins, without regard to LDL cholesterol levels. Randomization took place after diagnostic angiography but before PCI.
The analysis, however, subsequently excluded 29 patients who could not continue with the study, “mainly because of hospital research clinic closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the published report states.
That left 68 patients who had received at least one dose of PCSK9 inhibitor, alirocumab 150 mg subcutaneously, or the sham injection, and had at least one blood draw for LDL cholesterol response which, Dr. Mehta said, still left adequate statistical power for the LDL cholesterol–based primary endpoint.
By 6 weeks, LDL cholesterol levels had fallen 72.9% in the active-therapy group and by 48.1% in the control group (P < .001). Also, 92.1% and 56.7% of patients, respectively (P = .002), had achieved levels below the 1.4 mmol/L (54 mg/dL) goal in the European guidelines, Dr. Mehta reported.
Levels fell more than 50% compared with baseline in 89.5% of alirocumab patients and 60% (P = .007) of controls, respectively.
There was no significant difference in rates of attaining LDL cholesterol levels below the 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) threshold specified in U.S. guidelines for very high-risk patients: 94.7% of alirocumab patients and 83.4% of controls (P = .26).
Nor did the groups differ significantly in natriuretic peptide levels, which reflect ventricular remodeling; or in 6-week change in the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
An open-label, randomized trial scheduled to launch before the end of 2022 will explore similarly early initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor, compared with standard lipid management, in an estimated 4,000 patients hospitalized with STEMI or non-STEMI.
The EVOLVE MI trial is looking at the monoclonal antibody evolocumab (Repatha) for its effect on the primary endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, arterial revascularization, or death from any cause over an expected 3-4 years.
EPIC-STEMI was supported in part by Sanofi. Dr. Mehta reported an unrestricted grant from Sanofi to Hamilton Health Sciences for the present study and consulting fees from Amgen, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving grant support from and holding research contracts with Abbott Vascular; and receiving fees for consulting, honoraria, or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, and Baylis. Dr. Mehran disclosed receiving grants or research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies; receiving consultant fee or honoraria or serving on a speaker’s bureau for Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Janssen, Medtronic, Medscape/WebMD, and Cine-Med Research; and holding equity, stock, or stock options with Control Rad, Applied Therapeutics, and Elixir Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM TCT 2022
Sport climbing tied to improved posture in Parkinson’s disease
In a randomized controlled study, those who participated in scaling a wall using ropes and fixed anchors were less stooped at 12 weeks than was a control group that participated in some form of unsupervised physical activity.
The results underscore that it is never too late to learn a new sport or type of movement – and that this type of intervention may have big health payoffs, said study investigator Heidemarie Zach, MD, associate professor of neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
“There’s no hurdle too high over which you can’t climb, or burden you can’t conquer,” said Dr. Zach. “As long as you can walk independently and walk up a stair, you can go climbing.”
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Common feature of Parkinson’s disease
The analysis is part of a larger project that included a 2021 study showing a reduced Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) score by almost 13 points in patients who participated in sport climbing. The activity was also significantly associated with improved bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor.
The current analysis focused on stooped posture, which in addition to motor symptoms is a common feature of Parkinson’s disease. This postural deformity can result in significant discomfort, pain, and decreased quality of life.
Pharmaceutical treatments are mostly ineffective for postural deformities, the researchers noted. Physical therapy may help improve symptoms, but only a few randomized studies have examined improved posture in patients with Parkinson’s disease using physiotherapy in general and alternative sports in particular.
Sport climbing is “really unique” in Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Zach, who has yet to come across other research on this intervention. A climber herself, she recommended it to one of her patients: A 79-year old man with Parkinson’s disease who was a walker and hiker, and who ended up loving the sport. She called him her “pilot patient.”
The single-center study included 48 adult participants up to age 78 years (mean age, 65) with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. Most were at Hoehn & Yahr stage 2, with some at stage 3. All had no previous climbing experience. Exclusion criteria included having a condition other than Parkinson’s disease.
The researchers randomly assigned participants to a sport climbing course or to a control group.
The sport climbing group had a 90-minute climbing session each week for 12 weeks in an indoor gym. Under the supervision of an instructor, they were harnessed and connected to ropes with mats placed on the ground for safety.
The climbing wall was about 15 meters (50 feet) high. Participants typically started at 2 or 3 meters (6.5 to 9.5 feet) and worked their way up, Dr. Zach noted.
Those in the control group were asked to participate for 12 weeks in unsupervised physical activity, as recommended by the World Health Organization and the European Physiotherapy Guidelines for Parkinson’s Disease. This included at least 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity each week.
Whole-body workout
The primary outcome was improvement in posture, measured using a “simple” but highly reliable tool, said Dr. Zach. While the patients stood with their backs straight against a wall, researchers measured the distance in centimeters between the C7 sagittal vertical axis (C7SVA) and the wall.
The mean C7SVA at baseline did not significantly differ between the two groups, at 8.2 cm for the climbing group versus 7.7 cm for the control group. However, results showed only sport climbing was associated with significantly lessened forward flexion of the cervical spine.
The climbing group showed a decrease of the C7SVA by 1.7 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.6 cm). “So climbers were more erect and less stooped after 12 weeks,” Dr. Zach said.
She noted that the mean difference in the control group was 0.5 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.2 to 1.3 cm), which “is almost nothing.”
There did not seem to be any predictor, such as age, sex, or body mass index, for what patient subgroups benefit the most from the intervention, Dr. Zach noted.
In explaining why climbing helps posture, she said it is akin to “a whole-body workout.” The activity increases upper-body strength by using back and shoulder girdle muscles, as well as joint flexibility, Dr. Zach noted. Movements involved in climbing, such as repeated reaching for a distant hold, stretch the muscles of the hip flexors and hip.
As these movements reduce rigidity, the climbing action may also promote an upright posture. And as wall climbing involves planning and executing movements, it trains spatial body awareness, an important component of maintaining and correcting posture, she said.
Dr. Zach noted a motivational group dynamic likely also contributed to the success of the intervention. “They were cheering each other at the bottom” of the climbing wall, she said.
The results show that posture can be added to the improvements in Parkinson’s disease already documented from climbing, including improved motor symptoms, rigidity, and tremor, she said. The next step on the research agenda is to show whether the intervention has a positive impact on gait, Dr. Zach added.
‘Quite adventurous’
Commenting on the research, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at the American Parkinson Disease Association, said she welcomes “any new idea” to help patients with Parkinson’s disease – and that sport climbing sounds “quite adventurous.”
“The general concept that you’re asking the body to move in a novel way is a good thing for everyone and especially for people with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Gilbert, who was not involved with the research.
She noted that in Parkinson’s disease, an ideal exercise intervention includes a combination of four modalities: stretching, balance, aerobics, and strengthening. Rope climbing involves many of these, in addition to a cognitive element, Dr. Gilbert said. It’s also important that patients with Parkinson’s disease participate in an activity they enjoy, she added.
However, she stressed that safety has to be “weighed,” especially for patients with stage 3 Parkinson’s disease, who often have balance problems. “It may be difficult to climb a rope if you have balance problems,” Dr. Gilbert said. “The intervention needs to be tailored to the existing disability, and perhaps this activity is more a reasonable thing for patients at milder stages.”
Dr. Zach and Dr. Gilbert have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a randomized controlled study, those who participated in scaling a wall using ropes and fixed anchors were less stooped at 12 weeks than was a control group that participated in some form of unsupervised physical activity.
The results underscore that it is never too late to learn a new sport or type of movement – and that this type of intervention may have big health payoffs, said study investigator Heidemarie Zach, MD, associate professor of neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
“There’s no hurdle too high over which you can’t climb, or burden you can’t conquer,” said Dr. Zach. “As long as you can walk independently and walk up a stair, you can go climbing.”
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Common feature of Parkinson’s disease
The analysis is part of a larger project that included a 2021 study showing a reduced Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) score by almost 13 points in patients who participated in sport climbing. The activity was also significantly associated with improved bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor.
The current analysis focused on stooped posture, which in addition to motor symptoms is a common feature of Parkinson’s disease. This postural deformity can result in significant discomfort, pain, and decreased quality of life.
Pharmaceutical treatments are mostly ineffective for postural deformities, the researchers noted. Physical therapy may help improve symptoms, but only a few randomized studies have examined improved posture in patients with Parkinson’s disease using physiotherapy in general and alternative sports in particular.
Sport climbing is “really unique” in Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Zach, who has yet to come across other research on this intervention. A climber herself, she recommended it to one of her patients: A 79-year old man with Parkinson’s disease who was a walker and hiker, and who ended up loving the sport. She called him her “pilot patient.”
The single-center study included 48 adult participants up to age 78 years (mean age, 65) with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. Most were at Hoehn & Yahr stage 2, with some at stage 3. All had no previous climbing experience. Exclusion criteria included having a condition other than Parkinson’s disease.
The researchers randomly assigned participants to a sport climbing course or to a control group.
The sport climbing group had a 90-minute climbing session each week for 12 weeks in an indoor gym. Under the supervision of an instructor, they were harnessed and connected to ropes with mats placed on the ground for safety.
The climbing wall was about 15 meters (50 feet) high. Participants typically started at 2 or 3 meters (6.5 to 9.5 feet) and worked their way up, Dr. Zach noted.
Those in the control group were asked to participate for 12 weeks in unsupervised physical activity, as recommended by the World Health Organization and the European Physiotherapy Guidelines for Parkinson’s Disease. This included at least 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity each week.
Whole-body workout
The primary outcome was improvement in posture, measured using a “simple” but highly reliable tool, said Dr. Zach. While the patients stood with their backs straight against a wall, researchers measured the distance in centimeters between the C7 sagittal vertical axis (C7SVA) and the wall.
The mean C7SVA at baseline did not significantly differ between the two groups, at 8.2 cm for the climbing group versus 7.7 cm for the control group. However, results showed only sport climbing was associated with significantly lessened forward flexion of the cervical spine.
The climbing group showed a decrease of the C7SVA by 1.7 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.6 cm). “So climbers were more erect and less stooped after 12 weeks,” Dr. Zach said.
She noted that the mean difference in the control group was 0.5 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.2 to 1.3 cm), which “is almost nothing.”
There did not seem to be any predictor, such as age, sex, or body mass index, for what patient subgroups benefit the most from the intervention, Dr. Zach noted.
In explaining why climbing helps posture, she said it is akin to “a whole-body workout.” The activity increases upper-body strength by using back and shoulder girdle muscles, as well as joint flexibility, Dr. Zach noted. Movements involved in climbing, such as repeated reaching for a distant hold, stretch the muscles of the hip flexors and hip.
As these movements reduce rigidity, the climbing action may also promote an upright posture. And as wall climbing involves planning and executing movements, it trains spatial body awareness, an important component of maintaining and correcting posture, she said.
Dr. Zach noted a motivational group dynamic likely also contributed to the success of the intervention. “They were cheering each other at the bottom” of the climbing wall, she said.
The results show that posture can be added to the improvements in Parkinson’s disease already documented from climbing, including improved motor symptoms, rigidity, and tremor, she said. The next step on the research agenda is to show whether the intervention has a positive impact on gait, Dr. Zach added.
‘Quite adventurous’
Commenting on the research, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at the American Parkinson Disease Association, said she welcomes “any new idea” to help patients with Parkinson’s disease – and that sport climbing sounds “quite adventurous.”
“The general concept that you’re asking the body to move in a novel way is a good thing for everyone and especially for people with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Gilbert, who was not involved with the research.
She noted that in Parkinson’s disease, an ideal exercise intervention includes a combination of four modalities: stretching, balance, aerobics, and strengthening. Rope climbing involves many of these, in addition to a cognitive element, Dr. Gilbert said. It’s also important that patients with Parkinson’s disease participate in an activity they enjoy, she added.
However, she stressed that safety has to be “weighed,” especially for patients with stage 3 Parkinson’s disease, who often have balance problems. “It may be difficult to climb a rope if you have balance problems,” Dr. Gilbert said. “The intervention needs to be tailored to the existing disability, and perhaps this activity is more a reasonable thing for patients at milder stages.”
Dr. Zach and Dr. Gilbert have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a randomized controlled study, those who participated in scaling a wall using ropes and fixed anchors were less stooped at 12 weeks than was a control group that participated in some form of unsupervised physical activity.
The results underscore that it is never too late to learn a new sport or type of movement – and that this type of intervention may have big health payoffs, said study investigator Heidemarie Zach, MD, associate professor of neurology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
“There’s no hurdle too high over which you can’t climb, or burden you can’t conquer,” said Dr. Zach. “As long as you can walk independently and walk up a stair, you can go climbing.”
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Common feature of Parkinson’s disease
The analysis is part of a larger project that included a 2021 study showing a reduced Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) score by almost 13 points in patients who participated in sport climbing. The activity was also significantly associated with improved bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor.
The current analysis focused on stooped posture, which in addition to motor symptoms is a common feature of Parkinson’s disease. This postural deformity can result in significant discomfort, pain, and decreased quality of life.
Pharmaceutical treatments are mostly ineffective for postural deformities, the researchers noted. Physical therapy may help improve symptoms, but only a few randomized studies have examined improved posture in patients with Parkinson’s disease using physiotherapy in general and alternative sports in particular.
Sport climbing is “really unique” in Parkinson’s disease, said Dr. Zach, who has yet to come across other research on this intervention. A climber herself, she recommended it to one of her patients: A 79-year old man with Parkinson’s disease who was a walker and hiker, and who ended up loving the sport. She called him her “pilot patient.”
The single-center study included 48 adult participants up to age 78 years (mean age, 65) with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. Most were at Hoehn & Yahr stage 2, with some at stage 3. All had no previous climbing experience. Exclusion criteria included having a condition other than Parkinson’s disease.
The researchers randomly assigned participants to a sport climbing course or to a control group.
The sport climbing group had a 90-minute climbing session each week for 12 weeks in an indoor gym. Under the supervision of an instructor, they were harnessed and connected to ropes with mats placed on the ground for safety.
The climbing wall was about 15 meters (50 feet) high. Participants typically started at 2 or 3 meters (6.5 to 9.5 feet) and worked their way up, Dr. Zach noted.
Those in the control group were asked to participate for 12 weeks in unsupervised physical activity, as recommended by the World Health Organization and the European Physiotherapy Guidelines for Parkinson’s Disease. This included at least 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity each week.
Whole-body workout
The primary outcome was improvement in posture, measured using a “simple” but highly reliable tool, said Dr. Zach. While the patients stood with their backs straight against a wall, researchers measured the distance in centimeters between the C7 sagittal vertical axis (C7SVA) and the wall.
The mean C7SVA at baseline did not significantly differ between the two groups, at 8.2 cm for the climbing group versus 7.7 cm for the control group. However, results showed only sport climbing was associated with significantly lessened forward flexion of the cervical spine.
The climbing group showed a decrease of the C7SVA by 1.7 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.6 cm). “So climbers were more erect and less stooped after 12 weeks,” Dr. Zach said.
She noted that the mean difference in the control group was 0.5 cm (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.2 to 1.3 cm), which “is almost nothing.”
There did not seem to be any predictor, such as age, sex, or body mass index, for what patient subgroups benefit the most from the intervention, Dr. Zach noted.
In explaining why climbing helps posture, she said it is akin to “a whole-body workout.” The activity increases upper-body strength by using back and shoulder girdle muscles, as well as joint flexibility, Dr. Zach noted. Movements involved in climbing, such as repeated reaching for a distant hold, stretch the muscles of the hip flexors and hip.
As these movements reduce rigidity, the climbing action may also promote an upright posture. And as wall climbing involves planning and executing movements, it trains spatial body awareness, an important component of maintaining and correcting posture, she said.
Dr. Zach noted a motivational group dynamic likely also contributed to the success of the intervention. “They were cheering each other at the bottom” of the climbing wall, she said.
The results show that posture can be added to the improvements in Parkinson’s disease already documented from climbing, including improved motor symptoms, rigidity, and tremor, she said. The next step on the research agenda is to show whether the intervention has a positive impact on gait, Dr. Zach added.
‘Quite adventurous’
Commenting on the research, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at the American Parkinson Disease Association, said she welcomes “any new idea” to help patients with Parkinson’s disease – and that sport climbing sounds “quite adventurous.”
“The general concept that you’re asking the body to move in a novel way is a good thing for everyone and especially for people with Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr. Gilbert, who was not involved with the research.
She noted that in Parkinson’s disease, an ideal exercise intervention includes a combination of four modalities: stretching, balance, aerobics, and strengthening. Rope climbing involves many of these, in addition to a cognitive element, Dr. Gilbert said. It’s also important that patients with Parkinson’s disease participate in an activity they enjoy, she added.
However, she stressed that safety has to be “weighed,” especially for patients with stage 3 Parkinson’s disease, who often have balance problems. “It may be difficult to climb a rope if you have balance problems,” Dr. Gilbert said. “The intervention needs to be tailored to the existing disability, and perhaps this activity is more a reasonable thing for patients at milder stages.”
Dr. Zach and Dr. Gilbert have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MDS 2022
Weight gain linked to cancer survival in men and women
Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss that frequently occurs during cancer treatment. Consequences can include skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, worse quality of life, and worse survival. On the other hand, weight gain during cancer treatment has been tied to better survival.
Few studies have examined the relationship between weight gain and outcomes by sex.
“The finding that weight gain occurred in subsets of males and females is a new observation. The fact that weight gain occurs in cancer patients during anticancer treatment could confound results of clinical [trials] evaluating novel anticachexia treatments. Simultaneously studying longitudinal body weights and serum and cellular biomarkers in cancer patients might provide insights into mechanisms involved in cachexia. Increased understanding of mechanisms driving cachexia could lead to new therapeutic strategies,” said study coauthor Philip Bonomi, MD, who is an oncologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.
“This data, although it appears to be very basic, is critically important, especially as we consider our novel interventions in the treatment of cancer cachexia,” said Eric Roeland, MD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of European Society for Medical Oncology. Dr. Roeland is a medical oncologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Dr. Roeland is also the lead author of cancer cachexia guidelines published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020. The guidelines suggest that dietary counseling can be offered to patients, but warns against routine use of enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition. Although no specific drug can be recommended for cancer cachexia, progesterone analogs and corticosteroids used over the short term (weeks) can be used on a trial base to improve appetite and weight gain. While not approved in the United States, anamorelin was approved in 2020 in Japan for cancer cachexia in NSCLC, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
The new study should raise awareness of the importance of adverse effects of cancer treatments, said Karin Jordan, MD, University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany). She served as a discussant following the presentation. “As a medical oncologist, we focus a bit too much on the benefits of antineoplastic therapy, both on cure and on the survival benefit. But what is also very, very important to do is a balanced oncology treatment to focus on the risks of oncology therapies,” she said.
The study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential for bias. “The hypothesis that weight gain leads to improved survival is not really proven as it likewise may be the other way around,” Dr. Jordan said.
However, in oncology research, a phenomenon called the “obesity paradox” is increasingly catching the interest of investigators. Observational studies have shown that overweight patients with certain cancers (specifically, colorectal, endometrial and lung cancer). actually have improved overall survival as compared with normal-weight patients.
Details from the new study
The researchers pooled data 1,030 patients who participated in three phase 3 clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2011. The patients all received platinum-based chemotherapy as part of control arms. 304 were female and 726 were male. The median age was 62. 16.7% were Asian, the mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m2, 88.5% had stage 4 disease, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 86.3% were current or former smokers.
Males and females had similar magnitudes and rate of weight gain over the course of treatment. Any weight gain was associated with improved overall survival in both males (12.7 vs. 8.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; P < .001) and females (16.2 vs. 10.1 months; HR, 0.65; P = .0028). Patients who had a weight gain of 2.5% of body weight or more saw an improvement in overall survival in both males (14.0 vs. 8.2 months; HR, 0.57; P < .001) and females (16.7 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 0.61; P = .0041).
Patients with a weight gain of 5% or more was associated with improved survival in males (13.6 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.62; P = .0001), but there was no statistically significant association in females (16.7 vs. 12.6 months; HR, 0.69; P = .1107).
Regardless of weight-gain status, males had lower survival rates than females. All of the associations were independent of smoking status.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Bonomi has received honoraria from Pfizer and Helsinn for participation in scientific advisory boards. Dr. Jordan has consulted for Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, and BD Solution. She has received research funding from Deutsche Krebshilfe. She has received honoraria from MSD, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, Pomme-med, PharmaMar, arttemoi, OnkoUpdate, Stemline, and Roche.
Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss that frequently occurs during cancer treatment. Consequences can include skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, worse quality of life, and worse survival. On the other hand, weight gain during cancer treatment has been tied to better survival.
Few studies have examined the relationship between weight gain and outcomes by sex.
“The finding that weight gain occurred in subsets of males and females is a new observation. The fact that weight gain occurs in cancer patients during anticancer treatment could confound results of clinical [trials] evaluating novel anticachexia treatments. Simultaneously studying longitudinal body weights and serum and cellular biomarkers in cancer patients might provide insights into mechanisms involved in cachexia. Increased understanding of mechanisms driving cachexia could lead to new therapeutic strategies,” said study coauthor Philip Bonomi, MD, who is an oncologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.
“This data, although it appears to be very basic, is critically important, especially as we consider our novel interventions in the treatment of cancer cachexia,” said Eric Roeland, MD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of European Society for Medical Oncology. Dr. Roeland is a medical oncologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Dr. Roeland is also the lead author of cancer cachexia guidelines published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020. The guidelines suggest that dietary counseling can be offered to patients, but warns against routine use of enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition. Although no specific drug can be recommended for cancer cachexia, progesterone analogs and corticosteroids used over the short term (weeks) can be used on a trial base to improve appetite and weight gain. While not approved in the United States, anamorelin was approved in 2020 in Japan for cancer cachexia in NSCLC, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
The new study should raise awareness of the importance of adverse effects of cancer treatments, said Karin Jordan, MD, University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany). She served as a discussant following the presentation. “As a medical oncologist, we focus a bit too much on the benefits of antineoplastic therapy, both on cure and on the survival benefit. But what is also very, very important to do is a balanced oncology treatment to focus on the risks of oncology therapies,” she said.
The study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential for bias. “The hypothesis that weight gain leads to improved survival is not really proven as it likewise may be the other way around,” Dr. Jordan said.
However, in oncology research, a phenomenon called the “obesity paradox” is increasingly catching the interest of investigators. Observational studies have shown that overweight patients with certain cancers (specifically, colorectal, endometrial and lung cancer). actually have improved overall survival as compared with normal-weight patients.
Details from the new study
The researchers pooled data 1,030 patients who participated in three phase 3 clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2011. The patients all received platinum-based chemotherapy as part of control arms. 304 were female and 726 were male. The median age was 62. 16.7% were Asian, the mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m2, 88.5% had stage 4 disease, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 86.3% were current or former smokers.
Males and females had similar magnitudes and rate of weight gain over the course of treatment. Any weight gain was associated with improved overall survival in both males (12.7 vs. 8.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; P < .001) and females (16.2 vs. 10.1 months; HR, 0.65; P = .0028). Patients who had a weight gain of 2.5% of body weight or more saw an improvement in overall survival in both males (14.0 vs. 8.2 months; HR, 0.57; P < .001) and females (16.7 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 0.61; P = .0041).
Patients with a weight gain of 5% or more was associated with improved survival in males (13.6 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.62; P = .0001), but there was no statistically significant association in females (16.7 vs. 12.6 months; HR, 0.69; P = .1107).
Regardless of weight-gain status, males had lower survival rates than females. All of the associations were independent of smoking status.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Bonomi has received honoraria from Pfizer and Helsinn for participation in scientific advisory boards. Dr. Jordan has consulted for Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, and BD Solution. She has received research funding from Deutsche Krebshilfe. She has received honoraria from MSD, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, Pomme-med, PharmaMar, arttemoi, OnkoUpdate, Stemline, and Roche.
Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of weight loss that frequently occurs during cancer treatment. Consequences can include skeletal muscle loss, fatigue, functional impairment, worse quality of life, and worse survival. On the other hand, weight gain during cancer treatment has been tied to better survival.
Few studies have examined the relationship between weight gain and outcomes by sex.
“The finding that weight gain occurred in subsets of males and females is a new observation. The fact that weight gain occurs in cancer patients during anticancer treatment could confound results of clinical [trials] evaluating novel anticachexia treatments. Simultaneously studying longitudinal body weights and serum and cellular biomarkers in cancer patients might provide insights into mechanisms involved in cachexia. Increased understanding of mechanisms driving cachexia could lead to new therapeutic strategies,” said study coauthor Philip Bonomi, MD, who is an oncologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.
“This data, although it appears to be very basic, is critically important, especially as we consider our novel interventions in the treatment of cancer cachexia,” said Eric Roeland, MD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of European Society for Medical Oncology. Dr. Roeland is a medical oncologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Dr. Roeland is also the lead author of cancer cachexia guidelines published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020. The guidelines suggest that dietary counseling can be offered to patients, but warns against routine use of enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition. Although no specific drug can be recommended for cancer cachexia, progesterone analogs and corticosteroids used over the short term (weeks) can be used on a trial base to improve appetite and weight gain. While not approved in the United States, anamorelin was approved in 2020 in Japan for cancer cachexia in NSCLC, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
The new study should raise awareness of the importance of adverse effects of cancer treatments, said Karin Jordan, MD, University Hospital Heidelberg (Germany). She served as a discussant following the presentation. “As a medical oncologist, we focus a bit too much on the benefits of antineoplastic therapy, both on cure and on the survival benefit. But what is also very, very important to do is a balanced oncology treatment to focus on the risks of oncology therapies,” she said.
The study is limited by its retrospective nature and potential for bias. “The hypothesis that weight gain leads to improved survival is not really proven as it likewise may be the other way around,” Dr. Jordan said.
However, in oncology research, a phenomenon called the “obesity paradox” is increasingly catching the interest of investigators. Observational studies have shown that overweight patients with certain cancers (specifically, colorectal, endometrial and lung cancer). actually have improved overall survival as compared with normal-weight patients.
Details from the new study
The researchers pooled data 1,030 patients who participated in three phase 3 clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2011. The patients all received platinum-based chemotherapy as part of control arms. 304 were female and 726 were male. The median age was 62. 16.7% were Asian, the mean body mass index was 24.6 kg/m2, 88.5% had stage 4 disease, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 86.3% were current or former smokers.
Males and females had similar magnitudes and rate of weight gain over the course of treatment. Any weight gain was associated with improved overall survival in both males (12.7 vs. 8.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; P < .001) and females (16.2 vs. 10.1 months; HR, 0.65; P = .0028). Patients who had a weight gain of 2.5% of body weight or more saw an improvement in overall survival in both males (14.0 vs. 8.2 months; HR, 0.57; P < .001) and females (16.7 vs. 11.3 months; HR, 0.61; P = .0041).
Patients with a weight gain of 5% or more was associated with improved survival in males (13.6 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.62; P = .0001), but there was no statistically significant association in females (16.7 vs. 12.6 months; HR, 0.69; P = .1107).
Regardless of weight-gain status, males had lower survival rates than females. All of the associations were independent of smoking status.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Bonomi has received honoraria from Pfizer and Helsinn for participation in scientific advisory boards. Dr. Jordan has consulted for Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, and BD Solution. She has received research funding from Deutsche Krebshilfe. She has received honoraria from MSD, Merck, Amgen, Hexal, Riemser, Helsinn, Voluntis, Pfizer, Pomme-med, PharmaMar, arttemoi, OnkoUpdate, Stemline, and Roche.
FROM ESMO CONGRESS 2022
Is vitamin B12 protective against Parkinson’s disease?
A high baseline intake of vitamin B12 is linked to lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. “The results leave the door open for the possibility that vitamin B12 may have a beneficial effect in protecting against Parkinson’s disease,” said lead author Mario H. Flores, PhD, a research fellow at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
B vitamins and Parkinson’s disease
Previous preclinical studies have suggested that B vitamins protect against Parkinson’s disease by decreasing plasma homocysteine levels and through other neuroprotective effects. However, there have been only two epidemiologic studies of B vitamins in Parkinson’s disease – and their results were inconsistent, Dr. Flores noted.
The new study included 80,965 women from the Nurses’ Health Study and 48,837 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All completed a food frequency questionnaire at baseline and every 4 years.
Researchers collected information on dietary, supplemental, and total intake of folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 over the course of about 30 years up to 2012. They estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for Parkinson’s disease according to quintiles of cumulative average intake.
During follow-up, 495 women and 621 men were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
The investigators adjusted for potential confounders, including age, year, smoking status, physical activity, intake of alcohol or caffeine, hormone use (in women), intake of dairy and flavonoids, and Mediterranean diet score.
Analyses of cumulative average total folate, B6, and B12 intake were not associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. “The results of the primary analysis of cumulative intake were not significant for any of the vitamins we looked at,” said Dr. Flores.
Researchers also conducted secondary analyses, including assessment of how the most recent intake of B vitamins related to Parkinson’s disease risk. This analysis also did not find a significant association.
However, when examining baseline intake of vitamin B12, “we saw some suggestion for a potential inverse association with Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Flores said.
Among individuals with higher total intake of vitamin B12, there was a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease (pooled hazard ratio for top vs. bottom quintile, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.89; P for trend, .001). Intake from both diet and supplements contributed to this inverse association, the investigators noted.
Dietary sources of vitamin B12 include poultry, meat, fish, and dairy products; however, the main sources in this study were multivitamins/supplements and enriched foods such as cereals, said Dr. Flores.
Several limitations
In an attempt to overcome risk for reverse causality, the researchers examined B12 intake during four lagged exposure periods: 8-, 12-, 16- and 20-year lags. They found a significant relationship between intake for the 20-year lag time and development of Parkinson’s disease.
Overall, the study results provide support for a possible protective effect of early intake of vitamin B12 on the development of Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Flores noted.
In addition to being involved in the regulation of homocysteine levels, vitamin B12 may help regulate leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), an enzyme implicated in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease, he said.
However, the study did not examine how B12 deficiency might relate to risk for Parkinson’s disease, which “is something worth looking at in future studies,” said Dr. Flores.
He added that although findings from a single study cannot translate into recommendations on ideal vitamin B12 intake to prevent or delay Parkinson’s disease onset, the median intake in the highest quintile that the study linked to less Parkinson’s disease risk was 18 mcg/d at baseline. The amount in multivitamins can vary from 5 to 25 mcg.
Dr. Flores said a limitation of the study was that it included U.S. health care professionals, “most of whom arguably have very good nutritional status.”
As well, assessment of vitamin B intake was self-reported, so there might have been measurement error – and there may have been an unmeasured confounding factor that could explain the associations.
Dr. Flores also stressed that the effect of B12 on Parkinson’s disease risk “was very modest,” and the results need to be confirmed in other studies “ideally looking at circulating levels of vitamin B12.”
Not ready to recommend
Commenting on the research, Michael S. Okun, MD, medical adviser at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at the University of Florida, Gainesville, noted that other recent studies have suggested high-dose B12 may be preventive and a possible treatment in Parkinson’s disease.
“Although only a secondary aim of the current study, there was a reported potential benefit” in this new study, too, said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.
However, the evidence is still not strong enough to change prescribing habits, he noted. “We do not recommend high-dose B12 either for those at genetic risk of Parkinson’s or those already with the disease,” Dr. Okun said.
He added that because multiple recent studies have questioned the beneficial effects for multivitamin combinations used to prevent neurologic diseases, “it wasn’t surprising to see results showing a lack of protection against later-onset Parkinson’s disease with [cumulative] folate, B6, and B12 intake” in the current study.
The study was supported by the NIH. Dr. Flores and Dr. Okun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A high baseline intake of vitamin B12 is linked to lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. “The results leave the door open for the possibility that vitamin B12 may have a beneficial effect in protecting against Parkinson’s disease,” said lead author Mario H. Flores, PhD, a research fellow at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
B vitamins and Parkinson’s disease
Previous preclinical studies have suggested that B vitamins protect against Parkinson’s disease by decreasing plasma homocysteine levels and through other neuroprotective effects. However, there have been only two epidemiologic studies of B vitamins in Parkinson’s disease – and their results were inconsistent, Dr. Flores noted.
The new study included 80,965 women from the Nurses’ Health Study and 48,837 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All completed a food frequency questionnaire at baseline and every 4 years.
Researchers collected information on dietary, supplemental, and total intake of folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 over the course of about 30 years up to 2012. They estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for Parkinson’s disease according to quintiles of cumulative average intake.
During follow-up, 495 women and 621 men were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
The investigators adjusted for potential confounders, including age, year, smoking status, physical activity, intake of alcohol or caffeine, hormone use (in women), intake of dairy and flavonoids, and Mediterranean diet score.
Analyses of cumulative average total folate, B6, and B12 intake were not associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. “The results of the primary analysis of cumulative intake were not significant for any of the vitamins we looked at,” said Dr. Flores.
Researchers also conducted secondary analyses, including assessment of how the most recent intake of B vitamins related to Parkinson’s disease risk. This analysis also did not find a significant association.
However, when examining baseline intake of vitamin B12, “we saw some suggestion for a potential inverse association with Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Flores said.
Among individuals with higher total intake of vitamin B12, there was a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease (pooled hazard ratio for top vs. bottom quintile, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.89; P for trend, .001). Intake from both diet and supplements contributed to this inverse association, the investigators noted.
Dietary sources of vitamin B12 include poultry, meat, fish, and dairy products; however, the main sources in this study were multivitamins/supplements and enriched foods such as cereals, said Dr. Flores.
Several limitations
In an attempt to overcome risk for reverse causality, the researchers examined B12 intake during four lagged exposure periods: 8-, 12-, 16- and 20-year lags. They found a significant relationship between intake for the 20-year lag time and development of Parkinson’s disease.
Overall, the study results provide support for a possible protective effect of early intake of vitamin B12 on the development of Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Flores noted.
In addition to being involved in the regulation of homocysteine levels, vitamin B12 may help regulate leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), an enzyme implicated in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease, he said.
However, the study did not examine how B12 deficiency might relate to risk for Parkinson’s disease, which “is something worth looking at in future studies,” said Dr. Flores.
He added that although findings from a single study cannot translate into recommendations on ideal vitamin B12 intake to prevent or delay Parkinson’s disease onset, the median intake in the highest quintile that the study linked to less Parkinson’s disease risk was 18 mcg/d at baseline. The amount in multivitamins can vary from 5 to 25 mcg.
Dr. Flores said a limitation of the study was that it included U.S. health care professionals, “most of whom arguably have very good nutritional status.”
As well, assessment of vitamin B intake was self-reported, so there might have been measurement error – and there may have been an unmeasured confounding factor that could explain the associations.
Dr. Flores also stressed that the effect of B12 on Parkinson’s disease risk “was very modest,” and the results need to be confirmed in other studies “ideally looking at circulating levels of vitamin B12.”
Not ready to recommend
Commenting on the research, Michael S. Okun, MD, medical adviser at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at the University of Florida, Gainesville, noted that other recent studies have suggested high-dose B12 may be preventive and a possible treatment in Parkinson’s disease.
“Although only a secondary aim of the current study, there was a reported potential benefit” in this new study, too, said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.
However, the evidence is still not strong enough to change prescribing habits, he noted. “We do not recommend high-dose B12 either for those at genetic risk of Parkinson’s or those already with the disease,” Dr. Okun said.
He added that because multiple recent studies have questioned the beneficial effects for multivitamin combinations used to prevent neurologic diseases, “it wasn’t surprising to see results showing a lack of protection against later-onset Parkinson’s disease with [cumulative] folate, B6, and B12 intake” in the current study.
The study was supported by the NIH. Dr. Flores and Dr. Okun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A high baseline intake of vitamin B12 is linked to lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, new research suggests. “The results leave the door open for the possibility that vitamin B12 may have a beneficial effect in protecting against Parkinson’s disease,” said lead author Mario H. Flores, PhD, a research fellow at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
B vitamins and Parkinson’s disease
Previous preclinical studies have suggested that B vitamins protect against Parkinson’s disease by decreasing plasma homocysteine levels and through other neuroprotective effects. However, there have been only two epidemiologic studies of B vitamins in Parkinson’s disease – and their results were inconsistent, Dr. Flores noted.
The new study included 80,965 women from the Nurses’ Health Study and 48,837 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. All completed a food frequency questionnaire at baseline and every 4 years.
Researchers collected information on dietary, supplemental, and total intake of folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 over the course of about 30 years up to 2012. They estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for Parkinson’s disease according to quintiles of cumulative average intake.
During follow-up, 495 women and 621 men were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
The investigators adjusted for potential confounders, including age, year, smoking status, physical activity, intake of alcohol or caffeine, hormone use (in women), intake of dairy and flavonoids, and Mediterranean diet score.
Analyses of cumulative average total folate, B6, and B12 intake were not associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. “The results of the primary analysis of cumulative intake were not significant for any of the vitamins we looked at,” said Dr. Flores.
Researchers also conducted secondary analyses, including assessment of how the most recent intake of B vitamins related to Parkinson’s disease risk. This analysis also did not find a significant association.
However, when examining baseline intake of vitamin B12, “we saw some suggestion for a potential inverse association with Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Flores said.
Among individuals with higher total intake of vitamin B12, there was a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease (pooled hazard ratio for top vs. bottom quintile, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.89; P for trend, .001). Intake from both diet and supplements contributed to this inverse association, the investigators noted.
Dietary sources of vitamin B12 include poultry, meat, fish, and dairy products; however, the main sources in this study were multivitamins/supplements and enriched foods such as cereals, said Dr. Flores.
Several limitations
In an attempt to overcome risk for reverse causality, the researchers examined B12 intake during four lagged exposure periods: 8-, 12-, 16- and 20-year lags. They found a significant relationship between intake for the 20-year lag time and development of Parkinson’s disease.
Overall, the study results provide support for a possible protective effect of early intake of vitamin B12 on the development of Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Flores noted.
In addition to being involved in the regulation of homocysteine levels, vitamin B12 may help regulate leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK2), an enzyme implicated in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease, he said.
However, the study did not examine how B12 deficiency might relate to risk for Parkinson’s disease, which “is something worth looking at in future studies,” said Dr. Flores.
He added that although findings from a single study cannot translate into recommendations on ideal vitamin B12 intake to prevent or delay Parkinson’s disease onset, the median intake in the highest quintile that the study linked to less Parkinson’s disease risk was 18 mcg/d at baseline. The amount in multivitamins can vary from 5 to 25 mcg.
Dr. Flores said a limitation of the study was that it included U.S. health care professionals, “most of whom arguably have very good nutritional status.”
As well, assessment of vitamin B intake was self-reported, so there might have been measurement error – and there may have been an unmeasured confounding factor that could explain the associations.
Dr. Flores also stressed that the effect of B12 on Parkinson’s disease risk “was very modest,” and the results need to be confirmed in other studies “ideally looking at circulating levels of vitamin B12.”
Not ready to recommend
Commenting on the research, Michael S. Okun, MD, medical adviser at the Parkinson’s Foundation and professor and director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at the University of Florida, Gainesville, noted that other recent studies have suggested high-dose B12 may be preventive and a possible treatment in Parkinson’s disease.
“Although only a secondary aim of the current study, there was a reported potential benefit” in this new study, too, said Dr. Okun, who was not involved with the research.
However, the evidence is still not strong enough to change prescribing habits, he noted. “We do not recommend high-dose B12 either for those at genetic risk of Parkinson’s or those already with the disease,” Dr. Okun said.
He added that because multiple recent studies have questioned the beneficial effects for multivitamin combinations used to prevent neurologic diseases, “it wasn’t surprising to see results showing a lack of protection against later-onset Parkinson’s disease with [cumulative] folate, B6, and B12 intake” in the current study.
The study was supported by the NIH. Dr. Flores and Dr. Okun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MDS 2022