User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
International trial finds best regimen for Ewing sarcoma
CHICAGO -- (RR-ES) in the practice-changing rEECur trial.
This international trial is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of commonly used chemotherapy regimens in patients with the rare and deadly disease.
The study results are expected to change the standard of care and be practice-changing on a global scale, commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented June 5 during a plenary session.
Ewing sarcoma is a very rare cancer of the bone and soft tissue that mainly affects children and young adults, particularly in the second decade of life, explained lead author Martin McCabe, MD, clinical senior lecturer in pediatric, teenage, and young adult cancer at the University of Manchester (England). The incidence rate is 3.2 per million people under age 25 years, he said.
Dr. Gralow explained in an interview that treatment of Ewing sarcoma differs from one cancer center to another. Several different chemotherapy regimens are being used, all based on single-arm trials, with no consensus on which is best.
This international trial set out to answer that question and compared four different regimens. Participating centers were “able to solve a question by partnering, coming together, and even in a very rare population get enough patients to define the winner,” she said.
Earlier findings from this trial had shown that ifosfamide had improved survival, compared with gemcitabine and docetaxel and compared with irinotecan and temozolomide.
At the meeting, results of the comparison of ifosfamide versus a combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) were presented.
Median overall survival was 15.4 versus 10.5 months with ifosfamide versus TC, and 1-year overall survival was 55% versus 45%, respectively, for a 94% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for overall survival, Dr. McCabe reported.
Median event-free survival was 16.8 months in 73 patients in the ifosfamide group versus 10.4 months for 73 patients in the TC group. Six-month event-free survival was 47% versus 37%, respectively. “Given the observed data, there is a 96% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for event-free survival,” he said.
High-dose ifosfamide prolonged median event-free survival by 5.7 months, compared with 3.7 months for TC.
Notably, greater event-free survival and overall survival differences were observed for patients under age 14 years, compared with those aged 14 and older, Dr. McCabe noted.
As for toxicity, similar rates of neutropenic infections were seen in the two groups, but more severe renal and brain toxicity were observed with ifosfamide, with both occurring in less than 10% of patients, he said.
Despite the practice-changing results, Dr. McCabe stressed that the “differences [between treatments] are quite small, and what we actually need is better drugs to cure more patients.”
The rEEcur trial is continuing to recruit patients to the ifosfamide group, and a fifth chemotherapy group of carboplatin and etoposide has been added.
Later this year, investigators also plan to add a new group with a molecular targeted therapeutic.
Important global collaboration
Dr. Gralow emphasized the global collaboration that was behind this trial, which set out to answer important questions about how best to treat a rare disease. “In this really terrific collaboration ... there was an agreement to test all these regimens that are commonly used, and so we now have data on efficacy and toxicity.”
“It’s a really important concept in rare diseases: If we all work together, we actually can study them and get answers,” she said.
“I think pediatricians and oncologists are [now] better able to talk about the risks and benefits [of the regimens],” she added.
Vicki L. Keedy, MD, an ASCO Expert in sarcoma, concurred. The findings from the rEECur trial “could help physicians talk with patients and their families about the likelihood of response, survival, and toxicity for each regimen available for relapsed Ewing sarcoma based on objective, randomized data,” she commented in an ASCO press release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO -- (RR-ES) in the practice-changing rEECur trial.
This international trial is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of commonly used chemotherapy regimens in patients with the rare and deadly disease.
The study results are expected to change the standard of care and be practice-changing on a global scale, commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented June 5 during a plenary session.
Ewing sarcoma is a very rare cancer of the bone and soft tissue that mainly affects children and young adults, particularly in the second decade of life, explained lead author Martin McCabe, MD, clinical senior lecturer in pediatric, teenage, and young adult cancer at the University of Manchester (England). The incidence rate is 3.2 per million people under age 25 years, he said.
Dr. Gralow explained in an interview that treatment of Ewing sarcoma differs from one cancer center to another. Several different chemotherapy regimens are being used, all based on single-arm trials, with no consensus on which is best.
This international trial set out to answer that question and compared four different regimens. Participating centers were “able to solve a question by partnering, coming together, and even in a very rare population get enough patients to define the winner,” she said.
Earlier findings from this trial had shown that ifosfamide had improved survival, compared with gemcitabine and docetaxel and compared with irinotecan and temozolomide.
At the meeting, results of the comparison of ifosfamide versus a combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) were presented.
Median overall survival was 15.4 versus 10.5 months with ifosfamide versus TC, and 1-year overall survival was 55% versus 45%, respectively, for a 94% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for overall survival, Dr. McCabe reported.
Median event-free survival was 16.8 months in 73 patients in the ifosfamide group versus 10.4 months for 73 patients in the TC group. Six-month event-free survival was 47% versus 37%, respectively. “Given the observed data, there is a 96% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for event-free survival,” he said.
High-dose ifosfamide prolonged median event-free survival by 5.7 months, compared with 3.7 months for TC.
Notably, greater event-free survival and overall survival differences were observed for patients under age 14 years, compared with those aged 14 and older, Dr. McCabe noted.
As for toxicity, similar rates of neutropenic infections were seen in the two groups, but more severe renal and brain toxicity were observed with ifosfamide, with both occurring in less than 10% of patients, he said.
Despite the practice-changing results, Dr. McCabe stressed that the “differences [between treatments] are quite small, and what we actually need is better drugs to cure more patients.”
The rEEcur trial is continuing to recruit patients to the ifosfamide group, and a fifth chemotherapy group of carboplatin and etoposide has been added.
Later this year, investigators also plan to add a new group with a molecular targeted therapeutic.
Important global collaboration
Dr. Gralow emphasized the global collaboration that was behind this trial, which set out to answer important questions about how best to treat a rare disease. “In this really terrific collaboration ... there was an agreement to test all these regimens that are commonly used, and so we now have data on efficacy and toxicity.”
“It’s a really important concept in rare diseases: If we all work together, we actually can study them and get answers,” she said.
“I think pediatricians and oncologists are [now] better able to talk about the risks and benefits [of the regimens],” she added.
Vicki L. Keedy, MD, an ASCO Expert in sarcoma, concurred. The findings from the rEECur trial “could help physicians talk with patients and their families about the likelihood of response, survival, and toxicity for each regimen available for relapsed Ewing sarcoma based on objective, randomized data,” she commented in an ASCO press release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO -- (RR-ES) in the practice-changing rEECur trial.
This international trial is the first randomized head-to-head comparison of commonly used chemotherapy regimens in patients with the rare and deadly disease.
The study results are expected to change the standard of care and be practice-changing on a global scale, commented Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where the results were presented June 5 during a plenary session.
Ewing sarcoma is a very rare cancer of the bone and soft tissue that mainly affects children and young adults, particularly in the second decade of life, explained lead author Martin McCabe, MD, clinical senior lecturer in pediatric, teenage, and young adult cancer at the University of Manchester (England). The incidence rate is 3.2 per million people under age 25 years, he said.
Dr. Gralow explained in an interview that treatment of Ewing sarcoma differs from one cancer center to another. Several different chemotherapy regimens are being used, all based on single-arm trials, with no consensus on which is best.
This international trial set out to answer that question and compared four different regimens. Participating centers were “able to solve a question by partnering, coming together, and even in a very rare population get enough patients to define the winner,” she said.
Earlier findings from this trial had shown that ifosfamide had improved survival, compared with gemcitabine and docetaxel and compared with irinotecan and temozolomide.
At the meeting, results of the comparison of ifosfamide versus a combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) were presented.
Median overall survival was 15.4 versus 10.5 months with ifosfamide versus TC, and 1-year overall survival was 55% versus 45%, respectively, for a 94% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for overall survival, Dr. McCabe reported.
Median event-free survival was 16.8 months in 73 patients in the ifosfamide group versus 10.4 months for 73 patients in the TC group. Six-month event-free survival was 47% versus 37%, respectively. “Given the observed data, there is a 96% probability that ifosfamide is better than TC for event-free survival,” he said.
High-dose ifosfamide prolonged median event-free survival by 5.7 months, compared with 3.7 months for TC.
Notably, greater event-free survival and overall survival differences were observed for patients under age 14 years, compared with those aged 14 and older, Dr. McCabe noted.
As for toxicity, similar rates of neutropenic infections were seen in the two groups, but more severe renal and brain toxicity were observed with ifosfamide, with both occurring in less than 10% of patients, he said.
Despite the practice-changing results, Dr. McCabe stressed that the “differences [between treatments] are quite small, and what we actually need is better drugs to cure more patients.”
The rEEcur trial is continuing to recruit patients to the ifosfamide group, and a fifth chemotherapy group of carboplatin and etoposide has been added.
Later this year, investigators also plan to add a new group with a molecular targeted therapeutic.
Important global collaboration
Dr. Gralow emphasized the global collaboration that was behind this trial, which set out to answer important questions about how best to treat a rare disease. “In this really terrific collaboration ... there was an agreement to test all these regimens that are commonly used, and so we now have data on efficacy and toxicity.”
“It’s a really important concept in rare diseases: If we all work together, we actually can study them and get answers,” she said.
“I think pediatricians and oncologists are [now] better able to talk about the risks and benefits [of the regimens],” she added.
Vicki L. Keedy, MD, an ASCO Expert in sarcoma, concurred. The findings from the rEECur trial “could help physicians talk with patients and their families about the likelihood of response, survival, and toxicity for each regimen available for relapsed Ewing sarcoma based on objective, randomized data,” she commented in an ASCO press release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2022
‘Extremely exciting’ study results guide MM treatment options
CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.
Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.
However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.
In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.
The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.
“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
Study details
In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.
At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.
The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).
The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.
“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.
Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.
“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.
When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).
However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.
“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”
He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.
“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
Lack of difference in overall survival
These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.
“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.”
Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.
The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.”
Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.
Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.
However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.
In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.
The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.
“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
Study details
In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.
At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.
The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).
The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.
“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.
Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.
“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.
When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).
However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.
“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”
He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.
“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
Lack of difference in overall survival
These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.
“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.”
Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.
The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.”
Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – New results from a trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) offer some answers to questions about which treatment route to choose.
Patients who received the triplet of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) plus ASCT had a median PFS of 67.5 months, compared with 46.2 months for those who received RVD but did not have a transplant soon after.
However, patients were just as likely to be alive more than 6 years after treatment regardless of whether or not they underwent an immediate stem cell transplant.
In addition, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher in the group that received the transplant immediately after the triplet therapy.
The results were presented during a plenary session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our findings confirm the PFS benefit of transplantation as first-line treatment for patients with myeloma and confirms stem cell transplant as a standard of care with certain triplet therapy,” said lead author Paul G. Richardson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Another finding from the trial was that the use of maintenance lenalidomide in both groups continuously until progression conferred substantial clinical benefit.
“We can also say that the use of lenalidomide maintenance therapy is also a standard of care,” he added.
Study details
In this trial, Dr. Richardson and colleagues randomly assigned 873 patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma to the RVD-alone group (n = 357) or the transplantation group (n = 365). All patients had received one cycle of RVD prior to randomization and then received two additional RVD cycles plus stem-cell mobilization followed by either five additional RVD cycles (the RVD-alone group) or high-dose melphalan plus ASCT followed by two additional RVD cycles (the transplantation group). Lenalidomide was administered to all patients until disease progression, unacceptable side effects, or both.
At a median follow-up of 76.0 months, the risk of disease progression or death was 53% higher among patients who received RVD alone versus the transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; P < .001). The median duration of PFS among patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile was 55.5 vs. 17.1 months, favoring the transplantation group.
The percentage of patients who were alive without progression at 5 years was 58.4% vs 41.6%, respectively (HR, 1.66) and median duration of response was 56.4 vs 38.9 months, also favoring transplantation (HR, 1.45).
The estimated 5-year overall survival was similar between groups: 80.7% for transplantation and 79.2% for RVD alone (HR for death, 1.10; P > .99). For patients with a high-risk cytogenetic profile, 5-year survival was 63.4% versus 54.3%, respectively.
“This tells us that for patients who had kept transplant in reserve, they had the same overall survival as those who had had a transplant right away, despite there being such impressive initial disease control for the patients in whom transplant was used early,” Dr. Richardson said in a press release from his institution.
Patients who did not undergo immediate transplant received treatment when their disease progressed with newer and active therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies and/or next-generation novel agents, he noted. Only 28% of patients used the reserve option of a transplant.
“It demonstrates the extent to which patients now have options and that we have new data to guide them in balancing the pluses and minuses of each approach,” he added.
When looking at safety, the authors noted that the most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 279 patients (78.2%) in the RVD-alone group and 344 patients (94.2%) in the transplantation group. Of those patients, 60.5% and 89.9%, respectively, reported hematologic events of grade 3 or higher (P < .001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of invasive second primary cancers was similar in both cohorts (RVD-alone group, 4.9%; transplantation group, 6.5%).
However, while the risk of secondary cancers was similar between groups, Dr. Richardson noted that there was a higher incidence of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in the transplant cohort.
“There was also a significant drop in quality of life across transplant procedures, but the good news is that it was recoverable rapidly,” he said. “What is also really important is that we have prospective, multicenter, national comparative data on toxicity. That’s very important for providing patients with a choice as they move forward with their treatment plan.”
He noted that treatment continues to evolve. “This study was designed in 2009, begun in 2010, and now there is mature data in 2022,” Dr. Richardson said. “This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies and novel next-generation therapies. The results from these studies are extremely exciting.
“Now more than ever, treatment for multiple myeloma can be adapted for each patient,” Dr. Richardson said. “Our study provides important information about the benefits of transplant in the era of highly effective novel therapies and continuous maintenance, as well as the potential risks, to help patients and their physicians decide what approach may be best for them. This is particularly relevant as we have now further improved the induction treatment for younger patients with newly diagnosed myeloma using quadruplet regimens incorporating monoclonal antibodies, such as RVD combined with daratumumab.”
Lack of difference in overall survival
These new results further support an already established role of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the management of patients with multiple myeloma, said Samer Al-Homsi, MD, clinical professor of medicine and director of the blood and marrow transplant program at Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone, New York, who was approached for comment.
“The treatment regimen is applicable to patients who are determined by an expert in transplantation to be fit to receive autologous hematopoietic transplantation,” he added. “Although this study, like many others, establishes hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as part of the standard of care in multiple myeloma, only a fraction of patients are actually offered this important modality of treatment for a variety of reasons, including provider bias,” he noted. “In fact, although improvement in supportive care has enhanced the safety of the procedure, many patients are denied this therapy.”
Dr. Al-Homsi noted that the lack of difference in overall survival might be due to the fact that some patients (28%) in the RVD-alone group did end up undergoing transplantation at the time of progression. “Also, longer follow-up might reveal a difference in overall survival,” he said.
The toxicities are manageable, and the incidence of secondary malignancies was not significantly different between cohorts. “However,” he emphasized, “lenalidomide has been associated in other studies with increased incidence of secondary malignancies and it must be noted that this study used extended administration of lenalidomide until progression.”
Support for this study was provided by grants to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, R. J. Corman Multiple Myeloma Foundation, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, and Millennium/Takeda Pharmaceutical. Dr. Richardson has reported relationships with Celgene, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Secura Bio, Takeda, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Al-Homsi has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2022
Pending further study, caution recommended in treating vitiligo patients with lasers, IPL
SAN DIEGO – The .
Those are the preliminary conclusions from a systematic review and survey of experts that Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, presented during a clinical abstract session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
According to Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, clinicians are reluctant to perform laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in patients with vitiligo because of the absence of clear guidelines, so he and his colleagues set out to investigate the risks of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo in patients with vitiligo and to seek out international consensus on recommendations from experts. “There is hardly any literature about it and certainly no guidelines,” he pointed out.
Dr. Wolkerstorfer and his colleagues designed three consecutive studies: A systematic review of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo; an international survey among 14 vitiligo experts from 10 countries about the occurrence of laser‐induced vitiligo, and a Delphi technique aimed at establishing a broad consensus about recommendations for safe use of lasers in vitiligo patients. At the time of the meeting, the Delphi process was still being carried out, so he did not discuss that study.
For the systematic review, the researchers found 11,073 unique hits on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL using the terms “vitiligo,” “depigmentation,” “hypopigmentation,” and “leukoderma.” Only six case reports of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo were included in the final analysis. Of these, three had de novo vitiligo and three had vitiligo/halo nevi. These cases included two that occurred following treatment of port wine stains with the 585-nm laser; one that occurred following treatment of dyspigmentation with IPL; one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 1,064-nm laser, one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 755-nm laser, and one case that occurred following treatment of melasma with the ablative laser.
For the international survey of 14 experts from 10 countries, respondents said they had 10,670 new face-to-face vitiligo consultations in the past year. They reported that 30 of the vitiligo cases (0.3%) were likely caused by laser/IPL. Of these 30 cases, 18 (60%) had de novo vitiligo.
Of these cases, vitiligo occurred most frequently after laser hair reduction (47%), followed by use of the fractional laser (17%), and the ablative laser (13%). The interval between laser/IPL treatment and onset of vitiligo was 0-4 weeks in 27% of cases and 4-12 weeks in 57% of cases. Direct complications such as blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 57% of cases.
“Our conclusion is that laser and IPL-induced vitiligo is a rare phenomenon, and it often affects patients without prior vitiligo, which was really a surprise to us,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “Complications seem to increase the risk,” he added.
“Despite the apparently low risk, we recommend caution [in patients with vitiligo], especially with aggressive laser procedures,” he said. “We recommend using conservative settings, not to treat active vitiligo patients ... and to perform test spots prior to treating large areas.” But he characterized this recommendation as “totally preliminary” pending results of the Delphi technique aimed at building consensus about laser/IPL treatments in vitiligo.
In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Alexandria, Va., said that as clinicians await results of the study’s Delphi consensus, current use of lasers and IPL in patients with vitiligo “is based on your clinical judgment and whether the vitiligo is active or inactive. If the patient has vitiligo and you’re doing laser hair removal in the armpit, they may get active lesions in that area, but they can cover it. So, they may take that as a ‘win’ with the risk. But if it can erupt in other areas, that’s a risk they must be willing to take.”
Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical. He is an advisory board member for Incyte. Dr. Onwudiwe reported having no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – The .
Those are the preliminary conclusions from a systematic review and survey of experts that Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, presented during a clinical abstract session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
According to Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, clinicians are reluctant to perform laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in patients with vitiligo because of the absence of clear guidelines, so he and his colleagues set out to investigate the risks of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo in patients with vitiligo and to seek out international consensus on recommendations from experts. “There is hardly any literature about it and certainly no guidelines,” he pointed out.
Dr. Wolkerstorfer and his colleagues designed three consecutive studies: A systematic review of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo; an international survey among 14 vitiligo experts from 10 countries about the occurrence of laser‐induced vitiligo, and a Delphi technique aimed at establishing a broad consensus about recommendations for safe use of lasers in vitiligo patients. At the time of the meeting, the Delphi process was still being carried out, so he did not discuss that study.
For the systematic review, the researchers found 11,073 unique hits on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL using the terms “vitiligo,” “depigmentation,” “hypopigmentation,” and “leukoderma.” Only six case reports of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo were included in the final analysis. Of these, three had de novo vitiligo and three had vitiligo/halo nevi. These cases included two that occurred following treatment of port wine stains with the 585-nm laser; one that occurred following treatment of dyspigmentation with IPL; one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 1,064-nm laser, one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 755-nm laser, and one case that occurred following treatment of melasma with the ablative laser.
For the international survey of 14 experts from 10 countries, respondents said they had 10,670 new face-to-face vitiligo consultations in the past year. They reported that 30 of the vitiligo cases (0.3%) were likely caused by laser/IPL. Of these 30 cases, 18 (60%) had de novo vitiligo.
Of these cases, vitiligo occurred most frequently after laser hair reduction (47%), followed by use of the fractional laser (17%), and the ablative laser (13%). The interval between laser/IPL treatment and onset of vitiligo was 0-4 weeks in 27% of cases and 4-12 weeks in 57% of cases. Direct complications such as blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 57% of cases.
“Our conclusion is that laser and IPL-induced vitiligo is a rare phenomenon, and it often affects patients without prior vitiligo, which was really a surprise to us,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “Complications seem to increase the risk,” he added.
“Despite the apparently low risk, we recommend caution [in patients with vitiligo], especially with aggressive laser procedures,” he said. “We recommend using conservative settings, not to treat active vitiligo patients ... and to perform test spots prior to treating large areas.” But he characterized this recommendation as “totally preliminary” pending results of the Delphi technique aimed at building consensus about laser/IPL treatments in vitiligo.
In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Alexandria, Va., said that as clinicians await results of the study’s Delphi consensus, current use of lasers and IPL in patients with vitiligo “is based on your clinical judgment and whether the vitiligo is active or inactive. If the patient has vitiligo and you’re doing laser hair removal in the armpit, they may get active lesions in that area, but they can cover it. So, they may take that as a ‘win’ with the risk. But if it can erupt in other areas, that’s a risk they must be willing to take.”
Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical. He is an advisory board member for Incyte. Dr. Onwudiwe reported having no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – The .
Those are the preliminary conclusions from a systematic review and survey of experts that Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, presented during a clinical abstract session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
According to Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, clinicians are reluctant to perform laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in patients with vitiligo because of the absence of clear guidelines, so he and his colleagues set out to investigate the risks of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo in patients with vitiligo and to seek out international consensus on recommendations from experts. “There is hardly any literature about it and certainly no guidelines,” he pointed out.
Dr. Wolkerstorfer and his colleagues designed three consecutive studies: A systematic review of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo; an international survey among 14 vitiligo experts from 10 countries about the occurrence of laser‐induced vitiligo, and a Delphi technique aimed at establishing a broad consensus about recommendations for safe use of lasers in vitiligo patients. At the time of the meeting, the Delphi process was still being carried out, so he did not discuss that study.
For the systematic review, the researchers found 11,073 unique hits on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL using the terms “vitiligo,” “depigmentation,” “hypopigmentation,” and “leukoderma.” Only six case reports of laser/IPL-induced vitiligo were included in the final analysis. Of these, three had de novo vitiligo and three had vitiligo/halo nevi. These cases included two that occurred following treatment of port wine stains with the 585-nm laser; one that occurred following treatment of dyspigmentation with IPL; one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 1,064-nm laser, one that occurred following treatment of hypertrichosis with the 755-nm laser, and one case that occurred following treatment of melasma with the ablative laser.
For the international survey of 14 experts from 10 countries, respondents said they had 10,670 new face-to-face vitiligo consultations in the past year. They reported that 30 of the vitiligo cases (0.3%) were likely caused by laser/IPL. Of these 30 cases, 18 (60%) had de novo vitiligo.
Of these cases, vitiligo occurred most frequently after laser hair reduction (47%), followed by use of the fractional laser (17%), and the ablative laser (13%). The interval between laser/IPL treatment and onset of vitiligo was 0-4 weeks in 27% of cases and 4-12 weeks in 57% of cases. Direct complications such as blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 57% of cases.
“Our conclusion is that laser and IPL-induced vitiligo is a rare phenomenon, and it often affects patients without prior vitiligo, which was really a surprise to us,” Dr. Wolkerstorfer said. “Complications seem to increase the risk,” he added.
“Despite the apparently low risk, we recommend caution [in patients with vitiligo], especially with aggressive laser procedures,” he said. “We recommend using conservative settings, not to treat active vitiligo patients ... and to perform test spots prior to treating large areas.” But he characterized this recommendation as “totally preliminary” pending results of the Delphi technique aimed at building consensus about laser/IPL treatments in vitiligo.
In an interview at the meeting, one of the session moderators, Oge Onwudiwe, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Alexandria, Va., said that as clinicians await results of the study’s Delphi consensus, current use of lasers and IPL in patients with vitiligo “is based on your clinical judgment and whether the vitiligo is active or inactive. If the patient has vitiligo and you’re doing laser hair removal in the armpit, they may get active lesions in that area, but they can cover it. So, they may take that as a ‘win’ with the risk. But if it can erupt in other areas, that’s a risk they must be willing to take.”
Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received grant or research funding from Lumenis, Novartis, and Avita Medical. He is an advisory board member for Incyte. Dr. Onwudiwe reported having no disclosures.
AT ASLMS 2022
Antidiabetes drug costs keep patients away
NEW ORLEANS – , according to findings from two separate studies.
One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.
“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.
Prevention drug lists can help
Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.
One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.
The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.
PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”
Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot
“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”
About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.
People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.
In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.
Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.
Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.
NEW ORLEANS – , according to findings from two separate studies.
One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.
“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.
Prevention drug lists can help
Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.
One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.
The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.
PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”
Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot
“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”
About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.
People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.
In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.
Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.
Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.
NEW ORLEANS – , according to findings from two separate studies.
One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.
“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.
Prevention drug lists can help
Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.
One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.
The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.
PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”
Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot
“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”
About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.
The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.
People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.
In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.
Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.
Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.
AT ADA 2022
Surgical site infections not increased in immunocompromised patients after Mohs surgery
, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.
The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs surgery is increasingly being performed for patients who are immunosuppressed because of the higher incidence of skin cancer in this group of patients and their higher risk of more aggressive skin cancers.
Overall, the rate of surgical site infections following Mohs surgery generally ranges from 0.5% to 2.4%. However, research is lacking on the risk among patients who are immunosuppressed and on how effective the use of prophylactic antibiotics is for these patients.
For the retrospective study, Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues evaluated data on 5,886 patients who underwent Mohs surgery at Cedars-Sinai between October 2014 and August 2021. Among these patients, 741 (12.6%) were immunocompromised.
Causes of immunosuppression in the cohort included the following: immunosuppression after transplant surgery; having HIV, chronic myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, or other hematogenous forms of immunosuppression; or immunosuppression related to other conditions, such as chronic inflammatory diseases.
Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).
Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).
The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).
The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.
Yet the risk of infection among those patients has been shown to be high and of consequence. Data indicate that infections account for 13%-16% of deaths among kidney and heart transplant patients and up to 21% of deaths among lung transplant patients. The rate of mortality appears to parallel the level of immunosuppression, Dr. Nguyen explained.
Furthermore, up to 25% of patients who undergo heart and lung transplantation develop bacteremia.
In terms of why worse infections or bacteremia surgeries may not occur in association with Mohs, Dr. Nguyen speculated that, as opposed to other surgeries, those involving the skin may benefit from unique defense mechanisms.
“The skin is a complex system in its defense against foreign pathogens and infectious agents,” she explained during her presentation. “There is the physical barrier, the antimicrobial peptides, and an adaptive as well as innate immune response.”
“In immunosuppressed patients, with the decrease in adaptive immunity, it’s possible this loss is less important because the skin has such a robust immune system in general.”
In her presentation, Dr. Nguyen noted that “further studies are necessary to investigate why patients aren’t presenting with greater severity, and we plan to try to investigate whether the unique nature of skin-mediated immunity makes this organ less susceptible to severe or life-threatening infections in patients on immunosuppression.”
Of note, the rate of prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions was no higher for those who were and those who were not immunosuppressed (37.9% vs. 34.1%; P = .14), which Dr. Nguyen said is consistent with recommendations.
“Immunosuppression is not an indication for antibiotic use, and hence, we did not have a higher rate of antibiotics use in this population,” she told this news organization. However, a 2021 ACMS survey found that a high percentage of Mohs surgeons prescribe antibiotics for procedures in which antibiotics are not indicated so as to reduce the risk of infections and that immunosuppression is a common reason for doing so.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.
The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs surgery is increasingly being performed for patients who are immunosuppressed because of the higher incidence of skin cancer in this group of patients and their higher risk of more aggressive skin cancers.
Overall, the rate of surgical site infections following Mohs surgery generally ranges from 0.5% to 2.4%. However, research is lacking on the risk among patients who are immunosuppressed and on how effective the use of prophylactic antibiotics is for these patients.
For the retrospective study, Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues evaluated data on 5,886 patients who underwent Mohs surgery at Cedars-Sinai between October 2014 and August 2021. Among these patients, 741 (12.6%) were immunocompromised.
Causes of immunosuppression in the cohort included the following: immunosuppression after transplant surgery; having HIV, chronic myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, or other hematogenous forms of immunosuppression; or immunosuppression related to other conditions, such as chronic inflammatory diseases.
Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).
Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).
The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).
The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.
Yet the risk of infection among those patients has been shown to be high and of consequence. Data indicate that infections account for 13%-16% of deaths among kidney and heart transplant patients and up to 21% of deaths among lung transplant patients. The rate of mortality appears to parallel the level of immunosuppression, Dr. Nguyen explained.
Furthermore, up to 25% of patients who undergo heart and lung transplantation develop bacteremia.
In terms of why worse infections or bacteremia surgeries may not occur in association with Mohs, Dr. Nguyen speculated that, as opposed to other surgeries, those involving the skin may benefit from unique defense mechanisms.
“The skin is a complex system in its defense against foreign pathogens and infectious agents,” she explained during her presentation. “There is the physical barrier, the antimicrobial peptides, and an adaptive as well as innate immune response.”
“In immunosuppressed patients, with the decrease in adaptive immunity, it’s possible this loss is less important because the skin has such a robust immune system in general.”
In her presentation, Dr. Nguyen noted that “further studies are necessary to investigate why patients aren’t presenting with greater severity, and we plan to try to investigate whether the unique nature of skin-mediated immunity makes this organ less susceptible to severe or life-threatening infections in patients on immunosuppression.”
Of note, the rate of prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions was no higher for those who were and those who were not immunosuppressed (37.9% vs. 34.1%; P = .14), which Dr. Nguyen said is consistent with recommendations.
“Immunosuppression is not an indication for antibiotic use, and hence, we did not have a higher rate of antibiotics use in this population,” she told this news organization. However, a 2021 ACMS survey found that a high percentage of Mohs surgeons prescribe antibiotics for procedures in which antibiotics are not indicated so as to reduce the risk of infections and that immunosuppression is a common reason for doing so.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis, which is often used for these patients, may not be necessary, according to new research.
The retrospective cohort study found that “immunosuppressed patients had similar infection rates as immunocompetent patients following Mohs micrographic surgery,” first author Tuyet A. Nguyen, MD, of the department of dermatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Therefore, antibiotic prescribing patterns should not change simply due to immunosuppression. Furthermore, immunosuppressed patients appear to respond well to antibiotics and recover similarly to immunocompetent patients,” she said.
The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs surgery is increasingly being performed for patients who are immunosuppressed because of the higher incidence of skin cancer in this group of patients and their higher risk of more aggressive skin cancers.
Overall, the rate of surgical site infections following Mohs surgery generally ranges from 0.5% to 2.4%. However, research is lacking on the risk among patients who are immunosuppressed and on how effective the use of prophylactic antibiotics is for these patients.
For the retrospective study, Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues evaluated data on 5,886 patients who underwent Mohs surgery at Cedars-Sinai between October 2014 and August 2021. Among these patients, 741 (12.6%) were immunocompromised.
Causes of immunosuppression in the cohort included the following: immunosuppression after transplant surgery; having HIV, chronic myeloid leukemia, multiple myeloma, or other hematogenous forms of immunosuppression; or immunosuppression related to other conditions, such as chronic inflammatory diseases.
Overall, postprocedural infections occurred in 1.6% (95) of patients, a rate that mirrors that of the general population, Dr. Nguyen noted. No significant differences in surgical site infection rates were observed between immunocompromised patients (2.1%, n = 15) and those who were immunocompetent (1.6%, n = 80; P = .30).
Importantly, among those who were immunocompromised, the rates of infection were not significantly different between those who did receive antibiotics (3.0%, n = 8) and those who did not receive antibiotics (1.5%, n = 7; P = .19).
The lack of a difference in surgical site infection rates among those who did and those who did not receive antibiotics extended to the entire study population (2.0% vs. 1.4%; P = .12).
The study cohort mainly comprised immunosuppressed transplant patients, notably, heart, lung, and kidney transplant patients. However, “even in this population, we did not see a higher rate of infection,” senior author Nima M. Gharavi, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery and Mohs micrographic surgery and associate professor of medicine and pathology and laboratory medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said in an interview.
Yet the risk of infection among those patients has been shown to be high and of consequence. Data indicate that infections account for 13%-16% of deaths among kidney and heart transplant patients and up to 21% of deaths among lung transplant patients. The rate of mortality appears to parallel the level of immunosuppression, Dr. Nguyen explained.
Furthermore, up to 25% of patients who undergo heart and lung transplantation develop bacteremia.
In terms of why worse infections or bacteremia surgeries may not occur in association with Mohs, Dr. Nguyen speculated that, as opposed to other surgeries, those involving the skin may benefit from unique defense mechanisms.
“The skin is a complex system in its defense against foreign pathogens and infectious agents,” she explained during her presentation. “There is the physical barrier, the antimicrobial peptides, and an adaptive as well as innate immune response.”
“In immunosuppressed patients, with the decrease in adaptive immunity, it’s possible this loss is less important because the skin has such a robust immune system in general.”
In her presentation, Dr. Nguyen noted that “further studies are necessary to investigate why patients aren’t presenting with greater severity, and we plan to try to investigate whether the unique nature of skin-mediated immunity makes this organ less susceptible to severe or life-threatening infections in patients on immunosuppression.”
Of note, the rate of prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions was no higher for those who were and those who were not immunosuppressed (37.9% vs. 34.1%; P = .14), which Dr. Nguyen said is consistent with recommendations.
“Immunosuppression is not an indication for antibiotic use, and hence, we did not have a higher rate of antibiotics use in this population,” she told this news organization. However, a 2021 ACMS survey found that a high percentage of Mohs surgeons prescribe antibiotics for procedures in which antibiotics are not indicated so as to reduce the risk of infections and that immunosuppression is a common reason for doing so.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS ANNUAL MEETING
Obesity in adolescence raises risk for adult type 1 diabetes
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.
These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.
The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.
The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”
Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”
Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’
In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.
“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.
Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people
The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.
The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.
Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.
After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.
Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.
Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Hypotheses for mechanisms
The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.
The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.
“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.
Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.
And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”
Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.
These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.
The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.
The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”
Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”
Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’
In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.
“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.
Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people
The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.
The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.
Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.
After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.
Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.
Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Hypotheses for mechanisms
The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.
The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.
“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.
Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.
And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”
Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.
These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.
The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.
The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”
Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”
Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’
In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.
“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.
Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people
The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.
The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.
Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.
After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.
Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.
Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
Hypotheses for mechanisms
The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.
The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.
“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.
Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.
And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”
Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.
AT ADA 2022
Mohs surgery in the elderly: The dilemma of when to treat
As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.
In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.
“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”
That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.
Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.
When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”
Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.
Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly
Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.
The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.
In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.
She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.
The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.
The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.
She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.
Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.
Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.
Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.
“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.
“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.
“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”
Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.
In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.
“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”
That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.
Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.
When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”
Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.
Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly
Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.
The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.
In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.
She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.
The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.
The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.
She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.
Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.
Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.
Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.
“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.
“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.
“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”
Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As increasing numbers of patients in their 80s, 90s, and even 100s present for possible Mohs micrographic surgery, surgeons are confronted with deciding when the risks of treatment may outweigh the benefits.
In one of two presentations at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery that addressed this topic, Howard W. Rogers, MD, of Advanced Dermatology in Norwich, Conn., said that the crux of the issue is the concern not to undertreat. He noted that reduced access to dermatologic care during the pandemic has provided a stark lesson in the risks of delaying treatment in all age groups. “Mohs surgeons have all seen the consequences of delayed treatment due to the pandemic with enormous, destructive, and sometimes fatal cancers coming to the office in the last year,” he told this news organization.
“Pandemic-related treatment delay has caused increased suffering and morbidity for countless skin cancer patients across the U.S.,” he said. “In general, not treating skin cancer and hoping it’s not going to grow or having significant delays in treatment are a recipe for disastrous outcomes.”
That said, active monitoring may be appropriate “for select small cancers that tend to grow slowly in the very elderly,” added Dr. Rogers, the incoming ACMS president. Among the key situations where the benefits of active monitoring may outweigh the risks of surgery are small, slowly growing cancers, when frailty is an issue.
Frailty has been equated to compromised functionality, which can increase the risk of an array of complications, including prolonged wound healing and secondary complications stemming from immobility. The toll those issues can take on patients’ quality of life can be considerable, Dr. Rogers said.
When weighing treatment options with elderly patients, he emphasized that careful consideration should be given to whether the “time needed to benefit from a Mohs procedure is longer than the patient’s life expectancy.” Furthermore, a decision not to treat does not have to be the last word. “We need to have an honest dialogue on the consequences of nontreatment, but part of that should be that just because we don’t treat today, doesn’t mean we can’t treat it tomorrow, if necessary.”
Of note, he added, “more than 100,00 patients have surgery for basal cell carcinoma [BCC] in their last year of life.” And that figure will likely rise exponentially if population projections come to fruition, considering that the population of people over the age of 85 is predicted to increase to nearly 18 million in 2050, from 5.8 million in 2012, Dr. Rogers said.
Until more research emerges on how to best treat this age group, Dr. Rogers noted that experts recommend that for elderly patients, “treatment should be individualized with consideration of active monitoring of primary BCC that is not in the H-zone, asymptomatic, smaller than 1 cm, with treatment initiated if there is substantial growth or symptoms.” Ultimately, he urged surgeons to “be sensitive and treat our patients like ourselves or our family members.”
When appropriate – Mohs is safe in the very elderly
Taking on the issue in a separate presentation, Deborah MacFarlane, MD, professor of dermatology and head and neck surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said that for skin cancer cases that warrant treatment, clinicians should not let age alone stand in the way of Mohs surgery.
The evidence of its safety in the elderly dates back to a paper published in 1997 that Dr. MacFarlane coauthored, describing Mohs surgery of BCCs, squamous cell cancers (SCCs), and melanomas among 115 patients aged 90 and older (average, 92.4 years) who had an average of 1.9 comorbid medical conditions, and were taking an average of 2.3 medications. “Overall, we had just one complication among the patients,” she said.
In a subsequent paper, Dr. MacFarlane and her colleagues found that age at the time of Mohs surgery, even in older patients, was unrelated to survival, stage of cancer, or the type of repair. “We have concluded that this rapidly growing segment of the population can undergo Mohs surgery and should not be relegated to less effective treatment out of fear of its affecting their survival,” Dr. MacFarlane said.
She agreed with the concern about frailty and hence functionality, which may need to be factored in when making a decision to perform Mohs surgery. “I think this is something we do intuitively anyway,” she added. “We’re going to offer Mohs to someone who we think will survive and who is in relatively good health,” Dr. MacFarlane noted.
The point is illustrated in a new multicenter study of 1,181 patients at 22 U.S. sites, aged 85 years and older with nonmelanoma skin cancer referred for Mohs surgery. In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology after the ACMS meeting, patients who had Mohs surgery were almost four times more likely to have high functional status (P < .001) and were more likely to have facial tumors (P < .001), compared with those who had an alternate surgery.
The main reasons provided by the surgeons for opting to treat with Mohs included a patient’s desire for treatment with a high cure rate (66%), good/excellent patient functional status for age (57%), and a high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (40%), noted Dr. MacFarlane, one of the authors.
She reiterated the point raised by Dr. Rogers that “this is something we’re going to increasingly face,” noting that people over 85 represent the fastest growing segment of the population. “I have more patients over the age of 100 than I’ve ever had before,” she said.
Nevertheless, her own experience with elderly patients speaks to the safety of Mohs surgery in this population: Dr. MacFarlane reported a review of her practice’s records of 171 patients aged 85 years and older between May 2016 and May 2022, who received 414 separate procedures, without a single complication.
Sharing many of Dr. Rogers’ concerns about using caution in at-risk patients, Dr. MacFarlane offered recommendations for the optimal treatment of elderly patients receiving Mohs, including handling tissue delicately, and “keep undermining to a minimum.” She noted that intermediate closures and full thickness skin grafts are ideal closures for the elderly, while flaps may be performed in selected robust skin. It is also important to involve caretakers from the onset, talk and listen to patients – and play their choice of music during treatment, she said.
Commenting on the debate, comoderator Nahid Y. Vidal, MD, of the department of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the expanding older population is accompanied by increases in skin cancer, in addition to more immunosenescence that is related to development of infections, autoimmune disease, and malignant tumors.
“In our academic practice, as with both the reference speakers, we do frequently see elderly, and not uncommonly the super-elderly,” she told this news organization. “The take-home point for me is to treat your whole patient, not just the tumor,” considering social factors, frailty/spry factor, and preferences, “and to do the humanistic thing, while also remaining evidence based,” she said.
“Don’t assume that increased age translates to morbidity, worse outcomes, or futility of treatment,” she added. “Chances are, if [a patient] made it to 90 years old with only a few medications and few medical problems, they may make it to 100, so why put the patient at risk for metastasis and death from a treatable/curable skin cancer,” in the case of SCC, she said.
“By the same token, why not perform more conservative treatments such as ED&C [electrodesiccation and curettage] for very low-risk skin cancers in low-risk locations, such as a superficial basal cell carcinoma on the trunk?” Overall, instead of trying to determine how long a super-elderly individual will live, Dr. Vidal said that “it’s better to educate the patient, engage in a discussion about goals of care, and to make few assumptions.”
Dr. Rogers, Dr. MacFarlane, and Dr. Vidal report no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2022
Treating bone loss ups survival for breast cancer patients
A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the
The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.
Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.
ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.
The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.
The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.
Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).
There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.
Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).
In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.
“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.
A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.
A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the
The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.
Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.
ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.
The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.
The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.
Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).
There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.
Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).
In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.
“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.
A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.
A final long-term analysis of a study designed to evaluate the safety of a common osteoporosis drug used to treat bone loss in women who were treated for breast cancer, finds the
The final analysis of “Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer (ABCSG-18)” was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“Adjuvant denosumab should be considered for routine clinical use in postmenopausal patients with HR+ breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors treatment,” said the study’s author Michael Gnant, MD, FACS, director of surgery for the Medical University of Vienna.
Denosumab is currently recommended by ASCO as a treatment option for osteoporosis in patients who were successfully treated for nonmetastatic disease.
ABCSG-18 was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that comprised 3,420 patients (mean age 64.5 years) from 58 treatment centers. It included postmenopausal patients with early HR+ breast cancer who were treated with aromatase inhibitors between 2006 and 2013. Among the patients, 1,711 received denosumab 60 mg and 1,709 received a placebo every 6 months.
The primary endpoint was time to first clinical fracture, and the secondary disease outcome-related endpoints were disease-free survival, bone metastasis–free survival, and overall survival.
The hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the denosumab group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.97, P = .02) after a median follow-up of 8 years. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 69.0% in the placebo arm and 74.4% in the denosumab arm, with events occurring in 19.8% of patients overall, including deaths in 8.3%.
Bone metastasis–free survival (BMFS) rates were 81.3% and 85.7% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.65-1.00, P = .05). Overall survival was 83.6% and 88.8% in the placebo and denosumab arms, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01, P = .06).
There were no new toxicities, nor was there a single positive case of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) during the study period, which may be due to the low dosage of denosumab. The bone protection dose of denosumab is much lower than that used for treatment of metastases which can be 12 times higher. In those cases, 4%-6% of patients may develop ONJ. “At these very low doses, even after 30,000 treatment years, we did not observe a single confirmed ONJ case,” he said.
Exploratory observations showed the majority of events to include distant recurrences in bone, liver, and lungs. Analysis revealed a trend toward reduction in contralateral breast cancer in the denosumab arm (24 versus 29 events), with a reduction in second non-breast primary malignancies (101 versus 127 events).
In a much earlier ABCSG-18 study from 2015, the primary endpoint of fracture risk was reduced significantly with denosumab (HR = 0.50, P < .0001), with highly significantly longer time to first clinical fracture, higher percent increase in bone mineral density (P < .0001 for both) and fewer vertebral fractures (P = .009). There is evidence that older generation bisphosphonates have potential beyond bone health, such as reducing metabolism (which benefits bone turnover), and improving breast cancer outcomes. These benefits sparked interest in potential long-term cancer reduction with denosumab, Dr. Gnant said.
“Bone marrow is a putative source of late relapse. Tumor cells can harbor there in a quiescent state for 10-15-20 years, and then for some reason wake up and cause metastases. So, all bone-targeted agents are also evaluated for reductions in cancer which is what we were looking to investigate here in this 15-year data,” he said. Denosumab is more targeted than the bisphosphonates, and directly inhibits the RANK ligand which is an important mediator of osteoclast activation. “This ligand is believed to support metastases in the process of waking up,” Dr. Gnant said.
A limitation of the study is that the outcome endpoints of ABCSG-18 are secondary ones, making the results technically descriptive. The study was sponsored by Amgen.
FROM ASCO 2022
Weekly dulaglutide promising in youth with type 2 diabetes
Another glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), is poised to be a new option for glycemic control in youth aged 10-18 years with type 2 diabetes, given as a weekly injection, based on the AWARD-PEDS clinical trial.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved daily injection liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019 and weekly exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) in 2021 for glycemic control in young patients with type 2 diabetes, both of which are also GLP-1 agonists.
AWARD-PEDS showed that youth with type 2 diabetes and obesity treated with or without metformin or basal insulin who received weekly injections of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg of dulaglutide had lower hemoglobin A1c at 26 weeks than patients who received placebo.
Eli Lilly is now submitting these trial results to the FDA for this indication.
Dulaglutide was cleared for use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2014 and was additionally approved for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk of such events in 2020.
The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal, and the safety profile was consistent with that in adults. However, the drug had no effect on body mass index.
The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented as a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans.
Might dulaglutide target pathophysiologic impairments in youth?
Dulaglutide would “offer a new treatment that targets the pathophysiologic impairments of type 2 diabetes in youth,” Silva A. Arslanian, MD, lead investigator, told this news organization.
Exenatide is also given as a weekly injection but is associated with a smaller decrease in A1c and does not improve fasting glucose concentrations, plus it requires more steps compared with the dulaglutide single-use pen, said Dr. Arslanian, who is scientific director at the Center for Pediatric Research in Obesity & Metabolism, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.
“Liraglutide is a daily injection, and I believe most patients, particularly adolescents, would prefer a weekly injection,” she added. 
Invited to comment, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, said “the significance of this paper lies in the fact that options for treating type 2 diabetes in children are currently much more limited than in adults – which is a major problem given recent studies that show that type 2 diabetes in youth is much more aggressive and more likely to cause complications early in the disease course.”
Dr. Isganaitis was not involved with the trial but is an investigator for the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study.
“With supply chain shortages and health insurance coverage issues that are common in the U.S., it would be helpful to have more than one FDA-approved option for a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist in children [and] access to other classes of medications,” added Dr. Isganaitis, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston.
Phase 3 trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in youth with type 2 diabetes are also ongoing, Dr. Arslanian noted, “but as always, recruitment is slow with adolescents.”
“I am not optimistic that DPP4 inhibitors will have a place in the treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes,” she said. A recent study showed the addition of sitagliptin to metformin in youth with type 2 diabetes did not provide durable improvement in glycemic control.
Potentially promising therapy
In their published article, Dr. Arslanian and colleagues write that “considering the progressive increase in [A1c] over time that was observed in the TODAY trial, with 34% of youths having [an A1c] of at least 10% after up to 15 years of follow-up, we believe that the effects of dulaglutide therapy appear to be potentially promising.”
The TODAY trial showed that more than 50% of youth with type 2 diabetes taking metformin failed to maintain glycemic control within a median of 11.5 months, Dr. Arslanian elaborated, and over time their A1c escalated while their beta-cell function deteriorated rapidly, and complications progressed quickly.
“Therefore,” she noted, “considering that dulaglutide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs improve A1c, improve beta-cell function, suppress glucagon concentrations, and improve insulin sensitivity, dulaglutide would provide a promising new treatment option for youth with type 2 diabetes.”
Phase 3 superiority trial
The AWARD-PEDS trial included 154 youth with type 2 diabetes and a BMI greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex at 46 centers in nine countries. Researchers randomized participants 1:1:1 to the two doses of dulaglutide or placebo for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week open-label study (during which the placebo group received 0.75 mg dulaglutide) and a 4-week safety extension.
Participants were a mean age of 14.5 years and had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m2.
In each of the dulaglutide groups, roughly 66% of patients were female and 58% were White, 18% were Black, and about 57% were Hispanic. They had a mean weight of 91 kg (200 lb) and a mean A1c of about 8%; 62% were taking metformin only, 27% were taking metformin plus basal insulin, 3% were taking basal insulin only, and 10% were on diet and exercise only.
At 26 weeks, mean A1c increased by 0.6% in the placebo group but decreased by 0.6% in the 0.75-mg dulaglutide group and by 0.9% in the 1.5-mg dulaglutide group (P < .001 for both comparisons versus placebo).
Also at 26 weeks, more participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had an A1c <7.0% (51% vs. 14%; P < .001).
Fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (+17.1 mg/dL ) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (–18.9 mg/dL; P < .001).
There were no group differences in BMI or adiposity-related parameters even at 52 weeks.
“I believe adolescents may be somewhat resistant to the weight-reducing effects of GLP-1 agonists in diabetes trials (liraglutide and exenatide youth type 2 diabetes trials showed the same thing) and they may need higher doses,” Dr. Arslanian speculated.
“Only future studies will be able to address this issue,” she concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Arslanian has disclosed being a consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; participating in data safety monitoring for AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly trials; and receiving institutional research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Isganaitis has disclosed receiving research funding (paid to her institution) from Dexcom and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Another glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), is poised to be a new option for glycemic control in youth aged 10-18 years with type 2 diabetes, given as a weekly injection, based on the AWARD-PEDS clinical trial.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved daily injection liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019 and weekly exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) in 2021 for glycemic control in young patients with type 2 diabetes, both of which are also GLP-1 agonists.
AWARD-PEDS showed that youth with type 2 diabetes and obesity treated with or without metformin or basal insulin who received weekly injections of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg of dulaglutide had lower hemoglobin A1c at 26 weeks than patients who received placebo.
Eli Lilly is now submitting these trial results to the FDA for this indication.
Dulaglutide was cleared for use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2014 and was additionally approved for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk of such events in 2020.
The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal, and the safety profile was consistent with that in adults. However, the drug had no effect on body mass index.
The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented as a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans.
Might dulaglutide target pathophysiologic impairments in youth?
Dulaglutide would “offer a new treatment that targets the pathophysiologic impairments of type 2 diabetes in youth,” Silva A. Arslanian, MD, lead investigator, told this news organization.
Exenatide is also given as a weekly injection but is associated with a smaller decrease in A1c and does not improve fasting glucose concentrations, plus it requires more steps compared with the dulaglutide single-use pen, said Dr. Arslanian, who is scientific director at the Center for Pediatric Research in Obesity & Metabolism, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.
“Liraglutide is a daily injection, and I believe most patients, particularly adolescents, would prefer a weekly injection,” she added.
Invited to comment, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, said “the significance of this paper lies in the fact that options for treating type 2 diabetes in children are currently much more limited than in adults – which is a major problem given recent studies that show that type 2 diabetes in youth is much more aggressive and more likely to cause complications early in the disease course.”
Dr. Isganaitis was not involved with the trial but is an investigator for the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study.
“With supply chain shortages and health insurance coverage issues that are common in the U.S., it would be helpful to have more than one FDA-approved option for a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist in children [and] access to other classes of medications,” added Dr. Isganaitis, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston.
Phase 3 trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in youth with type 2 diabetes are also ongoing, Dr. Arslanian noted, “but as always, recruitment is slow with adolescents.”
“I am not optimistic that DPP4 inhibitors will have a place in the treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes,” she said. A recent study showed the addition of sitagliptin to metformin in youth with type 2 diabetes did not provide durable improvement in glycemic control.
Potentially promising therapy
In their published article, Dr. Arslanian and colleagues write that “considering the progressive increase in [A1c] over time that was observed in the TODAY trial, with 34% of youths having [an A1c] of at least 10% after up to 15 years of follow-up, we believe that the effects of dulaglutide therapy appear to be potentially promising.”
The TODAY trial showed that more than 50% of youth with type 2 diabetes taking metformin failed to maintain glycemic control within a median of 11.5 months, Dr. Arslanian elaborated, and over time their A1c escalated while their beta-cell function deteriorated rapidly, and complications progressed quickly.
“Therefore,” she noted, “considering that dulaglutide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs improve A1c, improve beta-cell function, suppress glucagon concentrations, and improve insulin sensitivity, dulaglutide would provide a promising new treatment option for youth with type 2 diabetes.”
Phase 3 superiority trial
The AWARD-PEDS trial included 154 youth with type 2 diabetes and a BMI greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex at 46 centers in nine countries. Researchers randomized participants 1:1:1 to the two doses of dulaglutide or placebo for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week open-label study (during which the placebo group received 0.75 mg dulaglutide) and a 4-week safety extension.
Participants were a mean age of 14.5 years and had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m2.
In each of the dulaglutide groups, roughly 66% of patients were female and 58% were White, 18% were Black, and about 57% were Hispanic. They had a mean weight of 91 kg (200 lb) and a mean A1c of about 8%; 62% were taking metformin only, 27% were taking metformin plus basal insulin, 3% were taking basal insulin only, and 10% were on diet and exercise only.
At 26 weeks, mean A1c increased by 0.6% in the placebo group but decreased by 0.6% in the 0.75-mg dulaglutide group and by 0.9% in the 1.5-mg dulaglutide group (P < .001 for both comparisons versus placebo).
Also at 26 weeks, more participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had an A1c <7.0% (51% vs. 14%; P < .001).
Fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (+17.1 mg/dL ) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (–18.9 mg/dL; P < .001).
There were no group differences in BMI or adiposity-related parameters even at 52 weeks.
“I believe adolescents may be somewhat resistant to the weight-reducing effects of GLP-1 agonists in diabetes trials (liraglutide and exenatide youth type 2 diabetes trials showed the same thing) and they may need higher doses,” Dr. Arslanian speculated.
“Only future studies will be able to address this issue,” she concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Arslanian has disclosed being a consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; participating in data safety monitoring for AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly trials; and receiving institutional research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Isganaitis has disclosed receiving research funding (paid to her institution) from Dexcom and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Another glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP1) agonist, dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), is poised to be a new option for glycemic control in youth aged 10-18 years with type 2 diabetes, given as a weekly injection, based on the AWARD-PEDS clinical trial.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved daily injection liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019 and weekly exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) in 2021 for glycemic control in young patients with type 2 diabetes, both of which are also GLP-1 agonists.
AWARD-PEDS showed that youth with type 2 diabetes and obesity treated with or without metformin or basal insulin who received weekly injections of 0.75 mg or 1.5 mg of dulaglutide had lower hemoglobin A1c at 26 weeks than patients who received placebo.
Eli Lilly is now submitting these trial results to the FDA for this indication.
Dulaglutide was cleared for use in adults with type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2014 and was additionally approved for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes at high risk of such events in 2020.
The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal, and the safety profile was consistent with that in adults. However, the drug had no effect on body mass index.
The study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented as a late-breaking poster at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in New Orleans.
Might dulaglutide target pathophysiologic impairments in youth?
Dulaglutide would “offer a new treatment that targets the pathophysiologic impairments of type 2 diabetes in youth,” Silva A. Arslanian, MD, lead investigator, told this news organization.
Exenatide is also given as a weekly injection but is associated with a smaller decrease in A1c and does not improve fasting glucose concentrations, plus it requires more steps compared with the dulaglutide single-use pen, said Dr. Arslanian, who is scientific director at the Center for Pediatric Research in Obesity & Metabolism, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.
“Liraglutide is a daily injection, and I believe most patients, particularly adolescents, would prefer a weekly injection,” she added.
Invited to comment, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, said “the significance of this paper lies in the fact that options for treating type 2 diabetes in children are currently much more limited than in adults – which is a major problem given recent studies that show that type 2 diabetes in youth is much more aggressive and more likely to cause complications early in the disease course.”
Dr. Isganaitis was not involved with the trial but is an investigator for the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study.
“With supply chain shortages and health insurance coverage issues that are common in the U.S., it would be helpful to have more than one FDA-approved option for a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist in children [and] access to other classes of medications,” added Dr. Isganaitis, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston.
Phase 3 trials of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in youth with type 2 diabetes are also ongoing, Dr. Arslanian noted, “but as always, recruitment is slow with adolescents.”
“I am not optimistic that DPP4 inhibitors will have a place in the treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes,” she said. A recent study showed the addition of sitagliptin to metformin in youth with type 2 diabetes did not provide durable improvement in glycemic control.
Potentially promising therapy
In their published article, Dr. Arslanian and colleagues write that “considering the progressive increase in [A1c] over time that was observed in the TODAY trial, with 34% of youths having [an A1c] of at least 10% after up to 15 years of follow-up, we believe that the effects of dulaglutide therapy appear to be potentially promising.”
The TODAY trial showed that more than 50% of youth with type 2 diabetes taking metformin failed to maintain glycemic control within a median of 11.5 months, Dr. Arslanian elaborated, and over time their A1c escalated while their beta-cell function deteriorated rapidly, and complications progressed quickly.
“Therefore,” she noted, “considering that dulaglutide and the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs improve A1c, improve beta-cell function, suppress glucagon concentrations, and improve insulin sensitivity, dulaglutide would provide a promising new treatment option for youth with type 2 diabetes.”
Phase 3 superiority trial
The AWARD-PEDS trial included 154 youth with type 2 diabetes and a BMI greater than the 85th percentile for their age and sex at 46 centers in nine countries. Researchers randomized participants 1:1:1 to the two doses of dulaglutide or placebo for 26 weeks, followed by a 26-week open-label study (during which the placebo group received 0.75 mg dulaglutide) and a 4-week safety extension.
Participants were a mean age of 14.5 years and had a mean BMI of 34 kg/m2.
In each of the dulaglutide groups, roughly 66% of patients were female and 58% were White, 18% were Black, and about 57% were Hispanic. They had a mean weight of 91 kg (200 lb) and a mean A1c of about 8%; 62% were taking metformin only, 27% were taking metformin plus basal insulin, 3% were taking basal insulin only, and 10% were on diet and exercise only.
At 26 weeks, mean A1c increased by 0.6% in the placebo group but decreased by 0.6% in the 0.75-mg dulaglutide group and by 0.9% in the 1.5-mg dulaglutide group (P < .001 for both comparisons versus placebo).
Also at 26 weeks, more participants in the pooled dulaglutide groups than in the placebo group had an A1c <7.0% (51% vs. 14%; P < .001).
Fasting glucose concentration increased in the placebo group (+17.1 mg/dL ) and decreased in the pooled dulaglutide groups (–18.9 mg/dL; P < .001).
There were no group differences in BMI or adiposity-related parameters even at 52 weeks.
“I believe adolescents may be somewhat resistant to the weight-reducing effects of GLP-1 agonists in diabetes trials (liraglutide and exenatide youth type 2 diabetes trials showed the same thing) and they may need higher doses,” Dr. Arslanian speculated.
“Only future studies will be able to address this issue,” she concluded.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Arslanian has disclosed being a consultant for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; participating in data safety monitoring for AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly trials; and receiving institutional research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Isganaitis has disclosed receiving research funding (paid to her institution) from Dexcom and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2022
Pembrolizumab before surgery improves survival in early triple negative breast cancer
for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).
The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.
The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.
A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.
The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.
At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.
Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.
Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.
The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).
“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.
The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.
Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).
“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.
In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.
for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).
The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.
The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.
A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.
The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.
At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.
Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.
Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.
The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).
“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.
The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.
Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).
“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.
In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.
for improving survival in patients with early triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).
The findings were presented in Chicago June 4 and 5 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by study author Lajos Pusztai, MD, D.Phil, director of Breast Cancer Translational Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
KEYNOTE-522 is the first prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.
The study included 1,174 patients (median age 49 years) with previously untreated stage II or III triple-negative breast cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant therapy with four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel and carboplatin, followed by four cycles of pembrolizumab or placebo plus doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or epirubicin-cyclophosphamide. After surgery, patients received pembrolizumab or placebeo for 9 cycles or until recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end points were pathological complete response and event-free survival.
A total of 784 patients were treated with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and the second group of 390 patients received a placebo and chemotherapy. After surgery, patients received adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group) or placebo and chemotherapy for every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles.
The estimated event-free survival at 36 months was 84.5% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group, compared with 76.8% in the placebo-chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.82; P <0.001). Adverse events occurred predominantly during the neoadjuvant phase and were consistent with the established safety profiles of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy.
At the first interim analysis, 64.8% achieved pathological complete response in the pembrolizumab group versus 51.2% in the placebo group. At the fourth interim analysis at 36 months, event-free survival was 76.8% in the placebo arm and 84.5% in the pembrolizumab arm. RCB-0 status was achieved by 63.4% and 56.2% of patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively.
Pembrolizumab did contribute immune-related adverse events, mostly grades 1-2, in about 17% of patients with thyroid function abnormalities most common with most occurring 20 weeks prior to surgical treatment.
Treatment with pembrolizumab added to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone, shifted residual cancer burden to lower categories across the entire spectrum of patients in the trial.
The hazard ratio for event-free survival with RCB-0, which Dr. Pusztai said is equivalent to a pathologic complete response (pCR), was 0.70 (0.38-1.31). For RCB-1 (minimal residual disease) it was 0.92 (0.39-2.20); for RCB-2 (moderate residual disease) it was 0.52 (0.32-0.82); and for RCB-3 (extensive residual disease) it was 1.24 (0.69-2.23).
“The most important finding is that patients in RCB-2, a group with a moderate amount of residual disease, experienced significant improvement with pembrolizumab. This clearly indicates not only that pembrolizumab leads to higher pCR rates but also that the pembrolizumCR/RCB-0 ... extends to patients who do not achieve pCR,” Dr. Pusztai said.
The benefit, he suggested, could be a result of the adjuvant pembrolizumab maintenance phase.
Patients in the RCB-3 category do poorly regardless of treatment (EFS of 34.6 % and 26.2% in the pembrolizumab and placebo arms, respectively).
“The RCB-3 population represents an unmet medical need, and they will need better drugs, and additional postoperative adjuvant therapy,” Dr. Pusztai said. The current standard of care is capecitabine for 6-8 cycles. Emerging new therapies, such as antibody drug conjugates, will be tested, he said.
In terms of limitations, adjuvant capecitabine was not allowed. “It remains uncertain how much better the RCB-2 and -3 patient outcomes would have been if capecitabine were administered,” he said.
The study was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Pusztai has received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck.
FROM ASCO 2022