User login
Momelotinib hits the mark for deadly bone marrow cancer
“The current state for the treatment of myelofibrosis relies on JAK2,” said Ruben Mesa, MD, of the Mays Cancer Center at the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center.
“Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor.” However, in the early days of studying momelotinib,“it became clear that there was also potentially an improvement in anemia,” which may be related to the additional inhibition of ACVR1, he explained.
Data suggest that the ability to curb anemia in anemic myelofibrosis patients prolongs their lives for up to 8 years, Dr. Mesa added.
Previous studies, notably the phase 3 SIMPLIFY study, showed that momelotinib was associated with comparable effects on spleen volume, transfusion, and total symptom scores from baseline that were similar to ruxolitinib.
In the current study, known as MOMENTUM, a daily dose of momelotinib was compared to danazol for treatment of symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients who had previously received standard JAK-inhibitor therapy.
In the study, the researchers randomized 130 patients to momelotinib and 65 to danazol. After 24 weeks, those in the danazol group were allowed to cross over to momelotinib. The primary endpoint of the study was total symptom score (TSS) response after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included transfusion independence and splenic response at 24 weeks. The median age of the patients in the momelotinib group was 71 years, 60.8% were male, and 82% were white. The baseline demographics were not significantly different in the danazol group.
Overall, 24.6% of momelotinib patients responded with improved total symptom scores at 24 weeks vs. 9.2% of the danazol group. Spleen response also was significantly higher in the momelotinib group; 40% of patients showed a 25% reduction and 23% showed a 35% reduction, compared with 6.2% and 3.1%, respectively, of patients in the danazol group. Transfusion independence at week 24 also was higher for momelotinib patients, compared with danazol patients (31% vs. 20%, respectively, P = 0064).
Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 53.8% of momelotinib patients and 64.6% of danazol patients, and serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 40.0%, respectively. Nearly all patients had anemia, but only 27.7% and 26.2% of the momelotinib and danazol groups, respectively, had thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher. The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and increased blood creatinine. A total of 27.7% of the patients in the momelotinib group discontinued treatment; 16 of whom did so because of an adverse event.
Also, at 24 weeks, patients in the momelotinib group showed a trend towards increased overall survival, compared with danazol (HR, 0.506, P = 0.719).
With momelotinib, there is a consistent thrombocytopenic profile across subgroups, the data on which were presented separately at ASCO (poster 7061), Dr. Mesa added.
“We feel that these findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in MF patients, especially those with anemia,” he concluded.
Cytopenia data are exciting
The key finding in the current study is that “momelotinib leads to important endpoints including significant improvement in symptoms and spleen reduction,” said Dr. Gabriela Hobbs of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who served as the discussant for the study.
“I think a novel finding of momelotinib that is definitely exciting from the treatment perspective is that momelotinib can also lead to improvement in cytopenias,” she said. “We often have to decide between treating the symptoms of the spleen at the expense of blood counts,” in MF patients, she noted.
The study was sponsored by Sierra Oncology. Dr. Mesa disclosed relationships with companies including Constellation Pharmaceutical, La Jolla Pharma, and study sponsor Sierra Oncology, as well as funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, CTI, Genentech, Incyte, Mays Cancer Center, NCI, Promedior, and Samus. Dr. Hobbs had no financial conflicts to disclose.
This article was updated 06/14/2022.
“The current state for the treatment of myelofibrosis relies on JAK2,” said Ruben Mesa, MD, of the Mays Cancer Center at the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center.
“Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor.” However, in the early days of studying momelotinib,“it became clear that there was also potentially an improvement in anemia,” which may be related to the additional inhibition of ACVR1, he explained.
Data suggest that the ability to curb anemia in anemic myelofibrosis patients prolongs their lives for up to 8 years, Dr. Mesa added.
Previous studies, notably the phase 3 SIMPLIFY study, showed that momelotinib was associated with comparable effects on spleen volume, transfusion, and total symptom scores from baseline that were similar to ruxolitinib.
In the current study, known as MOMENTUM, a daily dose of momelotinib was compared to danazol for treatment of symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients who had previously received standard JAK-inhibitor therapy.
In the study, the researchers randomized 130 patients to momelotinib and 65 to danazol. After 24 weeks, those in the danazol group were allowed to cross over to momelotinib. The primary endpoint of the study was total symptom score (TSS) response after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included transfusion independence and splenic response at 24 weeks. The median age of the patients in the momelotinib group was 71 years, 60.8% were male, and 82% were white. The baseline demographics were not significantly different in the danazol group.
Overall, 24.6% of momelotinib patients responded with improved total symptom scores at 24 weeks vs. 9.2% of the danazol group. Spleen response also was significantly higher in the momelotinib group; 40% of patients showed a 25% reduction and 23% showed a 35% reduction, compared with 6.2% and 3.1%, respectively, of patients in the danazol group. Transfusion independence at week 24 also was higher for momelotinib patients, compared with danazol patients (31% vs. 20%, respectively, P = 0064).
Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 53.8% of momelotinib patients and 64.6% of danazol patients, and serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 40.0%, respectively. Nearly all patients had anemia, but only 27.7% and 26.2% of the momelotinib and danazol groups, respectively, had thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher. The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and increased blood creatinine. A total of 27.7% of the patients in the momelotinib group discontinued treatment; 16 of whom did so because of an adverse event.
Also, at 24 weeks, patients in the momelotinib group showed a trend towards increased overall survival, compared with danazol (HR, 0.506, P = 0.719).
With momelotinib, there is a consistent thrombocytopenic profile across subgroups, the data on which were presented separately at ASCO (poster 7061), Dr. Mesa added.
“We feel that these findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in MF patients, especially those with anemia,” he concluded.
Cytopenia data are exciting
The key finding in the current study is that “momelotinib leads to important endpoints including significant improvement in symptoms and spleen reduction,” said Dr. Gabriela Hobbs of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who served as the discussant for the study.
“I think a novel finding of momelotinib that is definitely exciting from the treatment perspective is that momelotinib can also lead to improvement in cytopenias,” she said. “We often have to decide between treating the symptoms of the spleen at the expense of blood counts,” in MF patients, she noted.
The study was sponsored by Sierra Oncology. Dr. Mesa disclosed relationships with companies including Constellation Pharmaceutical, La Jolla Pharma, and study sponsor Sierra Oncology, as well as funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, CTI, Genentech, Incyte, Mays Cancer Center, NCI, Promedior, and Samus. Dr. Hobbs had no financial conflicts to disclose.
This article was updated 06/14/2022.
“The current state for the treatment of myelofibrosis relies on JAK2,” said Ruben Mesa, MD, of the Mays Cancer Center at the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center.
“Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor.” However, in the early days of studying momelotinib,“it became clear that there was also potentially an improvement in anemia,” which may be related to the additional inhibition of ACVR1, he explained.
Data suggest that the ability to curb anemia in anemic myelofibrosis patients prolongs their lives for up to 8 years, Dr. Mesa added.
Previous studies, notably the phase 3 SIMPLIFY study, showed that momelotinib was associated with comparable effects on spleen volume, transfusion, and total symptom scores from baseline that were similar to ruxolitinib.
In the current study, known as MOMENTUM, a daily dose of momelotinib was compared to danazol for treatment of symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients who had previously received standard JAK-inhibitor therapy.
In the study, the researchers randomized 130 patients to momelotinib and 65 to danazol. After 24 weeks, those in the danazol group were allowed to cross over to momelotinib. The primary endpoint of the study was total symptom score (TSS) response after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included transfusion independence and splenic response at 24 weeks. The median age of the patients in the momelotinib group was 71 years, 60.8% were male, and 82% were white. The baseline demographics were not significantly different in the danazol group.
Overall, 24.6% of momelotinib patients responded with improved total symptom scores at 24 weeks vs. 9.2% of the danazol group. Spleen response also was significantly higher in the momelotinib group; 40% of patients showed a 25% reduction and 23% showed a 35% reduction, compared with 6.2% and 3.1%, respectively, of patients in the danazol group. Transfusion independence at week 24 also was higher for momelotinib patients, compared with danazol patients (31% vs. 20%, respectively, P = 0064).
Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 53.8% of momelotinib patients and 64.6% of danazol patients, and serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 40.0%, respectively. Nearly all patients had anemia, but only 27.7% and 26.2% of the momelotinib and danazol groups, respectively, had thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher. The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and increased blood creatinine. A total of 27.7% of the patients in the momelotinib group discontinued treatment; 16 of whom did so because of an adverse event.
Also, at 24 weeks, patients in the momelotinib group showed a trend towards increased overall survival, compared with danazol (HR, 0.506, P = 0.719).
With momelotinib, there is a consistent thrombocytopenic profile across subgroups, the data on which were presented separately at ASCO (poster 7061), Dr. Mesa added.
“We feel that these findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in MF patients, especially those with anemia,” he concluded.
Cytopenia data are exciting
The key finding in the current study is that “momelotinib leads to important endpoints including significant improvement in symptoms and spleen reduction,” said Dr. Gabriela Hobbs of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who served as the discussant for the study.
“I think a novel finding of momelotinib that is definitely exciting from the treatment perspective is that momelotinib can also lead to improvement in cytopenias,” she said. “We often have to decide between treating the symptoms of the spleen at the expense of blood counts,” in MF patients, she noted.
The study was sponsored by Sierra Oncology. Dr. Mesa disclosed relationships with companies including Constellation Pharmaceutical, La Jolla Pharma, and study sponsor Sierra Oncology, as well as funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, CTI, Genentech, Incyte, Mays Cancer Center, NCI, Promedior, and Samus. Dr. Hobbs had no financial conflicts to disclose.
This article was updated 06/14/2022.
FROM ASCO 2022
SGLT2 inhibitors cut AFib risk in real-word analysis
NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.
Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.
The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.
The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
AFib effects add to benefits
The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”
This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.
Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality
The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.
“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.
Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.
“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.
“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence
A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.
The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.
These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.
SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue
Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m2. In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.
While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.
“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.
“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.
The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial 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. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.
NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.
Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.
The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.
The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
AFib effects add to benefits
The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”
This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.
Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality
The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.
“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.
Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.
“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.
“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence
A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.
The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.
These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.
SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue
Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m2. In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.
While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.
“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.
“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.
The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial 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. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.
NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.
Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.
The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.
The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
AFib effects add to benefits
The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”
This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.
Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality
The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.
“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.
Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.
“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.
“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence
A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.
The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.
These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.
SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue
Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m2. In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.
While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.
“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.
“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.
The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial 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. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.
AT ADA 2022
New guideline for in-hospital care of diabetes says use CGMs
Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.
Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”
This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.
It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.
The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
Use of CGM devices in hospital
The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).
“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.
Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.
However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”
On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.
The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).
To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”
“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”
The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.
Nine key recommendations
Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:
- CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
- Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
- Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
- Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
- Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
- Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
- Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
- Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
- Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” – can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
- Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission.
The guideline writers’ hopes
“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.
The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”
Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.”
Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.
Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”
This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.
It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.
The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
Use of CGM devices in hospital
The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).
“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.
Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.
However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”
On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.
The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).
To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”
“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”
The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.
Nine key recommendations
Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:
- CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
- Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
- Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
- Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
- Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
- Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
- Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
- Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
- Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” – can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
- Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission.
The guideline writers’ hopes
“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.
The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”
Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.”
Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.
Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”
This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.
It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.
The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
Use of CGM devices in hospital
The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).
“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.
Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.
However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”
On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.
The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).
To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”
“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”
The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.
Nine key recommendations
Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:
- CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
- Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
- Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
- Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
- Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
- Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
- Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
- Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
- Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” – can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
- Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission.
The guideline writers’ hopes
“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.
The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”
Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.”
Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2022
Opioid use in the elderly a dementia risk factor?
in new findings that suggest exposure to these drugs may be another modifiable risk factor for dementia.
“Clinicians and others may want to consider that opioid exposure in those aged 75-80 increases dementia risk, and to balance the potential benefits of opioid use in old age with adverse side effects,” said Stephen Z. Levine, PhD, professor, department of community mental health, University of Haifa (Israel).
The study was published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
Widespread use
Evidence points to a relatively high rate of opioid prescriptions among older adults. A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report noted 19.2% of the U.S. adult population filled an opioid prescription in 2018, with the rate in those over 65 double that of adults aged 20-24 years (25% vs. 11.2%).
Disorders and illnesses for which opioids might be prescribed, including cancer and some pain conditions, “are far more prevalent in old age than at a younger age,” said Dr. Levine.
This high rate of opioid use underscores the need to consider the risks of opioid use in old age, said Dr. Levine. “Unfortunately, studies of the association between opioid use and dementia risk in old age are few, and their results are inconsistent.”
The study included 91,307 Israeli citizens aged 60 and over without dementia who were enrolled in the Meuhedet Healthcare Services, a nonprofit health maintenance organization (HMO) serving 14% of the country’s population. Meuhedet has maintained an up-to-date dementia registry since 2002.
The average age of the study sample was 68.29 years at the start of the study (in 2012).
In Israel, opioids are prescribed for a 30-day period. In this study, opioid exposure was defined as opioid medication fills covering 60 days (or two prescriptions) within a 120-day interval.
The primary outcome was incident dementia during follow-up from Jan. 1, 2013 to Oct. 30, 2017. The analysis controlled for a number of factors, including age, sex, smoking status, health conditions such as arthritis, depression, diabetes, osteoporosis, cognitive decline, vitamin deficiencies, cancer, cardiovascular conditions, and hospitalizations for falls.
Researchers also accounted for the competing risk of mortality.
During the study, 3.1% of subjects were exposed to opioids at a mean age of 73.94 years, and 5.8% of subjects developed dementia at an average age of 78.07 years.
Increased dementia risk
The risk of incident dementia was significantly increased in those exposed to opioids versus unexposed individuals in the 75- to 80-year age group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.92; z statistic = 2.02; P < .05).
The authors noted the effect size for opioid exposure in this elderly age group is like other potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, including body mass index and smoking.
The current study could not determine the biological explanation for the increased dementia risk among older opioid users. “Causal notions are challenging in observational studies and should be viewed with caution,” Dr. Levine noted.
However, a plausible mechanism highlighted in the literature is that opioids promote apoptosis of microglia and neurons that contribute to neurodegenerative diseases, he said.
The study included 14 sensitivity analyses, including those that looked at females, subjects older than 70, smokers, and groups with and without comorbid health conditions. The only sensitivity analysis that didn’t have similar findings to the primary analysis looked at dementia risk restricted to subjects without a vitamin deficiency.
“It’s reassuring that 13 or 14 sensitivity analyses found a significant association between opioid exposure and dementia risk,” said Dr. Levine.
Some prior studies did not show an association between opioid exposure and dementia risk. One possible reason for the discrepancy with the current findings is that the previous research didn’t account for age-specific opioid use effects, or the competing risk of mortality, said Dr. Levine.
Clinicians have a number of potential alternatives to opioids to treat various conditions including acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, amine reuptake inhibitors (ARIs), membrane stabilizers, muscle relaxants, topical capsaicin, botulinum toxin, cannabinoids, and steroids.
A limitation of the study was that it didn’t adjust for all possible comorbid health conditions, including vascular conditions, or for use of benzodiazepines, and surgical procedures.
In addition, since up to 50% of dementia cases are undetected, it’s possible some in the unexposed opioid group may actually have undiagnosed dementia, thereby reducing the effect sizes in the results.
Reverse causality is also a possibility as the neuropathological process associated with dementia could have started prior to opioid exposure. In addition, the results are limited to prolonged opioid exposure.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, David Knopman, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., whose research involves late-life cognitive disorders, was skeptical.
“On the face of it, the fact that an association was seen only in one narrow age range – 75+ to 80 years – ought to raise serious suspicion about the reliability and validity of the claim that opioid use is a risk factor for dementia, he said.
Although the researchers performed several sensitivity analyses, including accounting for mortality, “pharmacoepidemiological studies are terribly sensitive to residual biases” related to physician and patient choices related to medication use, added Dr. Knopman.
The claim that opioids are a dementia risk “should be viewed with great caution” and should not influence use of opioids where they’re truly indicated, he said.
“It would be a great pity if patients with pain requiring opioids avoid them because of fears about dementia based on the dubious relationship between age and opioid use.”
Dr. Levine and Dr. Knopman report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in new findings that suggest exposure to these drugs may be another modifiable risk factor for dementia.
“Clinicians and others may want to consider that opioid exposure in those aged 75-80 increases dementia risk, and to balance the potential benefits of opioid use in old age with adverse side effects,” said Stephen Z. Levine, PhD, professor, department of community mental health, University of Haifa (Israel).
The study was published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
Widespread use
Evidence points to a relatively high rate of opioid prescriptions among older adults. A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report noted 19.2% of the U.S. adult population filled an opioid prescription in 2018, with the rate in those over 65 double that of adults aged 20-24 years (25% vs. 11.2%).
Disorders and illnesses for which opioids might be prescribed, including cancer and some pain conditions, “are far more prevalent in old age than at a younger age,” said Dr. Levine.
This high rate of opioid use underscores the need to consider the risks of opioid use in old age, said Dr. Levine. “Unfortunately, studies of the association between opioid use and dementia risk in old age are few, and their results are inconsistent.”
The study included 91,307 Israeli citizens aged 60 and over without dementia who were enrolled in the Meuhedet Healthcare Services, a nonprofit health maintenance organization (HMO) serving 14% of the country’s population. Meuhedet has maintained an up-to-date dementia registry since 2002.
The average age of the study sample was 68.29 years at the start of the study (in 2012).
In Israel, opioids are prescribed for a 30-day period. In this study, opioid exposure was defined as opioid medication fills covering 60 days (or two prescriptions) within a 120-day interval.
The primary outcome was incident dementia during follow-up from Jan. 1, 2013 to Oct. 30, 2017. The analysis controlled for a number of factors, including age, sex, smoking status, health conditions such as arthritis, depression, diabetes, osteoporosis, cognitive decline, vitamin deficiencies, cancer, cardiovascular conditions, and hospitalizations for falls.
Researchers also accounted for the competing risk of mortality.
During the study, 3.1% of subjects were exposed to opioids at a mean age of 73.94 years, and 5.8% of subjects developed dementia at an average age of 78.07 years.
Increased dementia risk
The risk of incident dementia was significantly increased in those exposed to opioids versus unexposed individuals in the 75- to 80-year age group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.92; z statistic = 2.02; P < .05).
The authors noted the effect size for opioid exposure in this elderly age group is like other potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, including body mass index and smoking.
The current study could not determine the biological explanation for the increased dementia risk among older opioid users. “Causal notions are challenging in observational studies and should be viewed with caution,” Dr. Levine noted.
However, a plausible mechanism highlighted in the literature is that opioids promote apoptosis of microglia and neurons that contribute to neurodegenerative diseases, he said.
The study included 14 sensitivity analyses, including those that looked at females, subjects older than 70, smokers, and groups with and without comorbid health conditions. The only sensitivity analysis that didn’t have similar findings to the primary analysis looked at dementia risk restricted to subjects without a vitamin deficiency.
“It’s reassuring that 13 or 14 sensitivity analyses found a significant association between opioid exposure and dementia risk,” said Dr. Levine.
Some prior studies did not show an association between opioid exposure and dementia risk. One possible reason for the discrepancy with the current findings is that the previous research didn’t account for age-specific opioid use effects, or the competing risk of mortality, said Dr. Levine.
Clinicians have a number of potential alternatives to opioids to treat various conditions including acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, amine reuptake inhibitors (ARIs), membrane stabilizers, muscle relaxants, topical capsaicin, botulinum toxin, cannabinoids, and steroids.
A limitation of the study was that it didn’t adjust for all possible comorbid health conditions, including vascular conditions, or for use of benzodiazepines, and surgical procedures.
In addition, since up to 50% of dementia cases are undetected, it’s possible some in the unexposed opioid group may actually have undiagnosed dementia, thereby reducing the effect sizes in the results.
Reverse causality is also a possibility as the neuropathological process associated with dementia could have started prior to opioid exposure. In addition, the results are limited to prolonged opioid exposure.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, David Knopman, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., whose research involves late-life cognitive disorders, was skeptical.
“On the face of it, the fact that an association was seen only in one narrow age range – 75+ to 80 years – ought to raise serious suspicion about the reliability and validity of the claim that opioid use is a risk factor for dementia, he said.
Although the researchers performed several sensitivity analyses, including accounting for mortality, “pharmacoepidemiological studies are terribly sensitive to residual biases” related to physician and patient choices related to medication use, added Dr. Knopman.
The claim that opioids are a dementia risk “should be viewed with great caution” and should not influence use of opioids where they’re truly indicated, he said.
“It would be a great pity if patients with pain requiring opioids avoid them because of fears about dementia based on the dubious relationship between age and opioid use.”
Dr. Levine and Dr. Knopman report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in new findings that suggest exposure to these drugs may be another modifiable risk factor for dementia.
“Clinicians and others may want to consider that opioid exposure in those aged 75-80 increases dementia risk, and to balance the potential benefits of opioid use in old age with adverse side effects,” said Stephen Z. Levine, PhD, professor, department of community mental health, University of Haifa (Israel).
The study was published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
Widespread use
Evidence points to a relatively high rate of opioid prescriptions among older adults. A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report noted 19.2% of the U.S. adult population filled an opioid prescription in 2018, with the rate in those over 65 double that of adults aged 20-24 years (25% vs. 11.2%).
Disorders and illnesses for which opioids might be prescribed, including cancer and some pain conditions, “are far more prevalent in old age than at a younger age,” said Dr. Levine.
This high rate of opioid use underscores the need to consider the risks of opioid use in old age, said Dr. Levine. “Unfortunately, studies of the association between opioid use and dementia risk in old age are few, and their results are inconsistent.”
The study included 91,307 Israeli citizens aged 60 and over without dementia who were enrolled in the Meuhedet Healthcare Services, a nonprofit health maintenance organization (HMO) serving 14% of the country’s population. Meuhedet has maintained an up-to-date dementia registry since 2002.
The average age of the study sample was 68.29 years at the start of the study (in 2012).
In Israel, opioids are prescribed for a 30-day period. In this study, opioid exposure was defined as opioid medication fills covering 60 days (or two prescriptions) within a 120-day interval.
The primary outcome was incident dementia during follow-up from Jan. 1, 2013 to Oct. 30, 2017. The analysis controlled for a number of factors, including age, sex, smoking status, health conditions such as arthritis, depression, diabetes, osteoporosis, cognitive decline, vitamin deficiencies, cancer, cardiovascular conditions, and hospitalizations for falls.
Researchers also accounted for the competing risk of mortality.
During the study, 3.1% of subjects were exposed to opioids at a mean age of 73.94 years, and 5.8% of subjects developed dementia at an average age of 78.07 years.
Increased dementia risk
The risk of incident dementia was significantly increased in those exposed to opioids versus unexposed individuals in the 75- to 80-year age group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.92; z statistic = 2.02; P < .05).
The authors noted the effect size for opioid exposure in this elderly age group is like other potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, including body mass index and smoking.
The current study could not determine the biological explanation for the increased dementia risk among older opioid users. “Causal notions are challenging in observational studies and should be viewed with caution,” Dr. Levine noted.
However, a plausible mechanism highlighted in the literature is that opioids promote apoptosis of microglia and neurons that contribute to neurodegenerative diseases, he said.
The study included 14 sensitivity analyses, including those that looked at females, subjects older than 70, smokers, and groups with and without comorbid health conditions. The only sensitivity analysis that didn’t have similar findings to the primary analysis looked at dementia risk restricted to subjects without a vitamin deficiency.
“It’s reassuring that 13 or 14 sensitivity analyses found a significant association between opioid exposure and dementia risk,” said Dr. Levine.
Some prior studies did not show an association between opioid exposure and dementia risk. One possible reason for the discrepancy with the current findings is that the previous research didn’t account for age-specific opioid use effects, or the competing risk of mortality, said Dr. Levine.
Clinicians have a number of potential alternatives to opioids to treat various conditions including acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, amine reuptake inhibitors (ARIs), membrane stabilizers, muscle relaxants, topical capsaicin, botulinum toxin, cannabinoids, and steroids.
A limitation of the study was that it didn’t adjust for all possible comorbid health conditions, including vascular conditions, or for use of benzodiazepines, and surgical procedures.
In addition, since up to 50% of dementia cases are undetected, it’s possible some in the unexposed opioid group may actually have undiagnosed dementia, thereby reducing the effect sizes in the results.
Reverse causality is also a possibility as the neuropathological process associated with dementia could have started prior to opioid exposure. In addition, the results are limited to prolonged opioid exposure.
Interpret with caution
Commenting on the study, David Knopman, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., whose research involves late-life cognitive disorders, was skeptical.
“On the face of it, the fact that an association was seen only in one narrow age range – 75+ to 80 years – ought to raise serious suspicion about the reliability and validity of the claim that opioid use is a risk factor for dementia, he said.
Although the researchers performed several sensitivity analyses, including accounting for mortality, “pharmacoepidemiological studies are terribly sensitive to residual biases” related to physician and patient choices related to medication use, added Dr. Knopman.
The claim that opioids are a dementia risk “should be viewed with great caution” and should not influence use of opioids where they’re truly indicated, he said.
“It would be a great pity if patients with pain requiring opioids avoid them because of fears about dementia based on the dubious relationship between age and opioid use.”
Dr. Levine and Dr. Knopman report no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Collagen ‘tile’ delivers postsurgical radiation in glioblastoma
and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.
The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.
Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.
This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.
Radioactive seeds
GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.
The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.
Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.
The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.
GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.
It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.
“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.
With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.
Safety profile
The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.
“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.
Six participants had 0 6 -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.
The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).
Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.
Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.
He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.
As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.
“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”
One and done
Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.
In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.
The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.
Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.
“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.
A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.
“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.
Interesting, timely
Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”
These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.
“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.
However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.
In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.
Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.
The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.
Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.
This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.
Radioactive seeds
GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.
The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.
Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.
The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.
GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.
It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.
“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.
With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.
Safety profile
The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.
“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.
Six participants had 0 6 -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.
The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).
Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.
Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.
He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.
As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.
“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”
One and done
Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.
In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.
The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.
Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.
“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.
A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.
“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.
Interesting, timely
Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”
These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.
“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.
However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.
In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.
Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.
The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.
Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.
This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.
Radioactive seeds
GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.
The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.
Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.
The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.
GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.
It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.
“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.
With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.
Safety profile
The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.
“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.
Six participants had 0 6 -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.
The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).
Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.
Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.
He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.
As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.
“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”
One and done
Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.
In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.
The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.
Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.
“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.
A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.
“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.
Interesting, timely
Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”
These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.
“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.
However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.
In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.
Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AANS 2022
Radiotherapy for brain metastases: ASTRO updates guidelines
“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.
The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.
“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.
“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.
Key recommendations
Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain, including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.
Key recommendations are as follows:
For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:
- SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
- Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases.
- For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
- Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
- Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
- Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.
For patients with resected brain metastases:
- Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
- For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
- As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.
Updating the guidelines
ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.
The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.
The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.
“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.
“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.
Key recommendations
Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain, including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.
Key recommendations are as follows:
For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:
- SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
- Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases.
- For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
- Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
- Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
- Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.
For patients with resected brain metastases:
- Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
- For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
- As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.
Updating the guidelines
ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.
The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.
The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.
“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.
“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.
Key recommendations
Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain, including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.
Key recommendations are as follows:
For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:
- SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
- Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases.
- For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
- Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
- Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
- Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.
For patients with resected brain metastases:
- Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
- For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
- As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.
Updating the guidelines
ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.
The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
FROM PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Novel gene therapy offers hope for some lymphomas
Not all patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and options for second-line therapies for this population are limited, said Dr. Alison Sehgal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in her presentation of the findings.
Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is a CD19-directed CAR T-cell product. In a previous phase 3 randomized trial (the TRANSFORM study), lisocabtagene showed superiority over salvage chemotherapy for LBCL patients who were fit candidates for stem cell transplant, but its use in older, frail patients who are not transplant candidates remains uncertain, wrote Dr. Sehgal and colleagues in their poster at the meeting.
In the study, the researchers identified 74 patients with r/r LBCL. Of these, 61 were treated with liso-cel. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 84 years, with a median age of 74 years, 61% were male, and 89% were white. Approximately half were refractory and half were relapsed.
For the therapy, patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed 2-7 days later by an infusion of liso-cel at a target dose of 100 x 106 CAR+ T cells; all patients had at least 6 months of follow-up from their first response.
The primary endpoint of overall response rate occurred in 80% of the patients, and clinically meaningful complete response occurred in 54% over a median follow-up of 12.3 months.
“Clinically meaningful CRs were observed across all subgroups,” Dr. Sehgal said in her presentation.
The response lasted a median of 21.7 months, and the median follow-up for duration of response was 15.5 months. The median overall survival was not reached, but the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months, with a median follow-up period of 13.0 months.
Responses occurred across all prespecified subgroups, with no significant differences in either safety or efficacy based on hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) scores.
“Despite the advanced age and comorbidities of the population, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports,” and no new or increased safety signals appeared, Dr. Sehgal said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (48%), leukopenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (11%). Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 23 patients (38%); of these, 1 patient was grade 3 and none were grades 4 or 5.
Approximately one-third of the patients (31%) experienced neurological events during the study; three cases were grade 3, none were grades 4 or 5. Patients with CRS or NE were treated with tocilizumab (10%), corticosteroids (3%), or both (20%). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% of patients overall, including grade 5 events in two patients because of COVID-19.
The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of controls. However, the results support the potential use of liso-cel as a second-line therapy for r/r LBCL patients who are not candidates for HSCT, Dr. Sehgal concluded.
Addressing an ongoing unmet need
In an interview, study coauthor Dr. Leo I. Gordon of Northwestern University, Chicago, observed, “Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant following first-line treatment, based on age, comorbidities, health status, or other prognostic factors, have more difficult-to-treat disease, poor prognosis, and more limited treatment options.”
Dr. Gordon noted that the PILOT study is the only trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant.
“Data from the primary analysis of the PILOT study further demonstrate the potential value of using CAR T-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory LBCL to help improve clinical outcomes and address ongoing unmet need,” he said.
CAR T-cell therapies have shown benefits in later lines for r/r LBCL and as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are deemed candidates for stem cell transplant, “so we were encouraged and not surprised by these data.”
However, Dr. Gordon noted, “There may be some patients with similar presentations that might have a transplant, so one limitation of the trial is how one defines patients where transplant is the intended therapy, and that assessment varies among institutions and clinicians.”
An application for liso-cel as a treatment for patients with r/r LBCL who have failed front-line therapy is currently under Priority Review with the FDA, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 24, 2022, he added.
Liso-cel may fill treatment gap as second-line therapy
The current study is important because “the long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation is very poor,” said Dr. Brian Till of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an interview.
“CAR T therapy leads to about a 40% cure rate, but is currently only available in this population after the failure of second-line therapy,” said Dr. Till, who was not involved in the study.
“Given that liso-cel was shown to improve outcomes in the second-line setting among transplant candidates, it is logical to consider it as second-line therapy in nontransplant candidates as well, who are otherwise fit enough to receive CAR T therapy,” Dr. Till explained.
“This study showed a rate of long-term progression-free survival similar to what has been observed in the third-line setting and was reasonably well tolerated in these older patients,” said Dr. Till. The results suggest “that second-line liso-cel may be an attractive treatment strategy for patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation due to advanced age or comorbidities,” he noted.
Dr. Till had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.
Not all patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and options for second-line therapies for this population are limited, said Dr. Alison Sehgal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in her presentation of the findings.
Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is a CD19-directed CAR T-cell product. In a previous phase 3 randomized trial (the TRANSFORM study), lisocabtagene showed superiority over salvage chemotherapy for LBCL patients who were fit candidates for stem cell transplant, but its use in older, frail patients who are not transplant candidates remains uncertain, wrote Dr. Sehgal and colleagues in their poster at the meeting.
In the study, the researchers identified 74 patients with r/r LBCL. Of these, 61 were treated with liso-cel. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 84 years, with a median age of 74 years, 61% were male, and 89% were white. Approximately half were refractory and half were relapsed.
For the therapy, patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed 2-7 days later by an infusion of liso-cel at a target dose of 100 x 106 CAR+ T cells; all patients had at least 6 months of follow-up from their first response.
The primary endpoint of overall response rate occurred in 80% of the patients, and clinically meaningful complete response occurred in 54% over a median follow-up of 12.3 months.
“Clinically meaningful CRs were observed across all subgroups,” Dr. Sehgal said in her presentation.
The response lasted a median of 21.7 months, and the median follow-up for duration of response was 15.5 months. The median overall survival was not reached, but the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months, with a median follow-up period of 13.0 months.
Responses occurred across all prespecified subgroups, with no significant differences in either safety or efficacy based on hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) scores.
“Despite the advanced age and comorbidities of the population, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports,” and no new or increased safety signals appeared, Dr. Sehgal said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (48%), leukopenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (11%). Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 23 patients (38%); of these, 1 patient was grade 3 and none were grades 4 or 5.
Approximately one-third of the patients (31%) experienced neurological events during the study; three cases were grade 3, none were grades 4 or 5. Patients with CRS or NE were treated with tocilizumab (10%), corticosteroids (3%), or both (20%). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% of patients overall, including grade 5 events in two patients because of COVID-19.
The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of controls. However, the results support the potential use of liso-cel as a second-line therapy for r/r LBCL patients who are not candidates for HSCT, Dr. Sehgal concluded.
Addressing an ongoing unmet need
In an interview, study coauthor Dr. Leo I. Gordon of Northwestern University, Chicago, observed, “Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant following first-line treatment, based on age, comorbidities, health status, or other prognostic factors, have more difficult-to-treat disease, poor prognosis, and more limited treatment options.”
Dr. Gordon noted that the PILOT study is the only trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant.
“Data from the primary analysis of the PILOT study further demonstrate the potential value of using CAR T-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory LBCL to help improve clinical outcomes and address ongoing unmet need,” he said.
CAR T-cell therapies have shown benefits in later lines for r/r LBCL and as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are deemed candidates for stem cell transplant, “so we were encouraged and not surprised by these data.”
However, Dr. Gordon noted, “There may be some patients with similar presentations that might have a transplant, so one limitation of the trial is how one defines patients where transplant is the intended therapy, and that assessment varies among institutions and clinicians.”
An application for liso-cel as a treatment for patients with r/r LBCL who have failed front-line therapy is currently under Priority Review with the FDA, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 24, 2022, he added.
Liso-cel may fill treatment gap as second-line therapy
The current study is important because “the long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation is very poor,” said Dr. Brian Till of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an interview.
“CAR T therapy leads to about a 40% cure rate, but is currently only available in this population after the failure of second-line therapy,” said Dr. Till, who was not involved in the study.
“Given that liso-cel was shown to improve outcomes in the second-line setting among transplant candidates, it is logical to consider it as second-line therapy in nontransplant candidates as well, who are otherwise fit enough to receive CAR T therapy,” Dr. Till explained.
“This study showed a rate of long-term progression-free survival similar to what has been observed in the third-line setting and was reasonably well tolerated in these older patients,” said Dr. Till. The results suggest “that second-line liso-cel may be an attractive treatment strategy for patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation due to advanced age or comorbidities,” he noted.
Dr. Till had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.
Not all patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) are candidates for high-dose chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and options for second-line therapies for this population are limited, said Dr. Alison Sehgal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in her presentation of the findings.
Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is a CD19-directed CAR T-cell product. In a previous phase 3 randomized trial (the TRANSFORM study), lisocabtagene showed superiority over salvage chemotherapy for LBCL patients who were fit candidates for stem cell transplant, but its use in older, frail patients who are not transplant candidates remains uncertain, wrote Dr. Sehgal and colleagues in their poster at the meeting.
In the study, the researchers identified 74 patients with r/r LBCL. Of these, 61 were treated with liso-cel. The patients ranged in age from 53 to 84 years, with a median age of 74 years, 61% were male, and 89% were white. Approximately half were refractory and half were relapsed.
For the therapy, patients underwent lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed 2-7 days later by an infusion of liso-cel at a target dose of 100 x 106 CAR+ T cells; all patients had at least 6 months of follow-up from their first response.
The primary endpoint of overall response rate occurred in 80% of the patients, and clinically meaningful complete response occurred in 54% over a median follow-up of 12.3 months.
“Clinically meaningful CRs were observed across all subgroups,” Dr. Sehgal said in her presentation.
The response lasted a median of 21.7 months, and the median follow-up for duration of response was 15.5 months. The median overall survival was not reached, but the median progression-free survival was 9.0 months, with a median follow-up period of 13.0 months.
Responses occurred across all prespecified subgroups, with no significant differences in either safety or efficacy based on hematopoietic cell transplantation–specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) scores.
“Despite the advanced age and comorbidities of the population, the safety profile was consistent with previous reports,” and no new or increased safety signals appeared, Dr. Sehgal said.
The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (48%), leukopenia (21%), thrombocytopenia (20%), and anemia (11%). Cytokine-release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 23 patients (38%); of these, 1 patient was grade 3 and none were grades 4 or 5.
Approximately one-third of the patients (31%) experienced neurological events during the study; three cases were grade 3, none were grades 4 or 5. Patients with CRS or NE were treated with tocilizumab (10%), corticosteroids (3%), or both (20%). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% of patients overall, including grade 5 events in two patients because of COVID-19.
The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of controls. However, the results support the potential use of liso-cel as a second-line therapy for r/r LBCL patients who are not candidates for HSCT, Dr. Sehgal concluded.
Addressing an ongoing unmet need
In an interview, study coauthor Dr. Leo I. Gordon of Northwestern University, Chicago, observed, “Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant following first-line treatment, based on age, comorbidities, health status, or other prognostic factors, have more difficult-to-treat disease, poor prognosis, and more limited treatment options.”
Dr. Gordon noted that the PILOT study is the only trial to evaluate a CAR T-cell therapy as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are not considered candidates for stem cell transplant.
“Data from the primary analysis of the PILOT study further demonstrate the potential value of using CAR T-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory LBCL to help improve clinical outcomes and address ongoing unmet need,” he said.
CAR T-cell therapies have shown benefits in later lines for r/r LBCL and as a second-line treatment for r/r LBCL patients who are deemed candidates for stem cell transplant, “so we were encouraged and not surprised by these data.”
However, Dr. Gordon noted, “There may be some patients with similar presentations that might have a transplant, so one limitation of the trial is how one defines patients where transplant is the intended therapy, and that assessment varies among institutions and clinicians.”
An application for liso-cel as a treatment for patients with r/r LBCL who have failed front-line therapy is currently under Priority Review with the FDA, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 24, 2022, he added.
Liso-cel may fill treatment gap as second-line therapy
The current study is important because “the long-term outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation is very poor,” said Dr. Brian Till of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in an interview.
“CAR T therapy leads to about a 40% cure rate, but is currently only available in this population after the failure of second-line therapy,” said Dr. Till, who was not involved in the study.
“Given that liso-cel was shown to improve outcomes in the second-line setting among transplant candidates, it is logical to consider it as second-line therapy in nontransplant candidates as well, who are otherwise fit enough to receive CAR T therapy,” Dr. Till explained.
“This study showed a rate of long-term progression-free survival similar to what has been observed in the third-line setting and was reasonably well tolerated in these older patients,” said Dr. Till. The results suggest “that second-line liso-cel may be an attractive treatment strategy for patients who are not candidates for stem cell transplantation due to advanced age or comorbidities,” he noted.
Dr. Till had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.
FROM ASCO 2022
ADA updates on finerenone, SGLT2 inhibitors, and race-based eGFR
As it gears up for the first in-person scientific sessions for 3 years, the American Diabetes Association has issued an addendum to its most recent annual clinical practice recommendations published in December 2021, the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, based on recent trial evidence and consensus.
The update informs clinicians about:
- The effect of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist (Kerendia) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
- The effect of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor on heart failure and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation to remove race in the formula for calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
“This is the fifth year that we are able to update the Standards of Care after it has been published through our Living Standards of Care updates, making it possible to give diabetes care providers the most important information and the latest evidence relevant to their practice,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief scientific and medical officer, said in a press release from the organization.
The addendum, entitled, “Living Standards of Care,” updates Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” and Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” of the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.
The amendments were approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee, which is responsible for developing the Standards of Care. The American College of Cardiology reviewed and endorsed the section on CVD and risk management.
The Living Standards Update was published online in Diabetes Care.
CVD and risk management
In the Addendum to Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:
- “For patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease treated with maximum tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, addition of finerenone should be considered to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease progression. A”
- “Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be considered for treatment with finerenone to reduce cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression.”
- “In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, an SGLT2 inhibitor [with proven benefit in this patient population] is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure, hospitalizations for heart failure, and cardiovascular death. ”
In the section “Statin Treatment,” the addendum no longer states that “a prospective trial of a newer fibrate ... is ongoing,” because that trial investigating pemafibrate (Kowa), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha modulator (or fibrate), has been discontinued.
Chronic kidney disease and risk management
In the Addendum to Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:
- “Traditionally, eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine using a validated formula. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is preferred. ... Historically, a correction factor for muscle mass was included in a modified equation for African Americans; however, due to various issues with inequities, it was decided to the equation such that it applies to all. Hence, a committee was convened, resulting in the recommendation for immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the U.S.” (This is based on an National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation.)
- “Additionally, increased use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone.”
Evidence from clinical trials
The update is based on findings from the following clinical trials:
- Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD)
- Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD)
- FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD
- Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved)
- Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED-HF)
- Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes (PROMINENT).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As it gears up for the first in-person scientific sessions for 3 years, the American Diabetes Association has issued an addendum to its most recent annual clinical practice recommendations published in December 2021, the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, based on recent trial evidence and consensus.
The update informs clinicians about:
- The effect of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist (Kerendia) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
- The effect of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor on heart failure and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation to remove race in the formula for calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
“This is the fifth year that we are able to update the Standards of Care after it has been published through our Living Standards of Care updates, making it possible to give diabetes care providers the most important information and the latest evidence relevant to their practice,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief scientific and medical officer, said in a press release from the organization.
The addendum, entitled, “Living Standards of Care,” updates Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” and Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” of the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.
The amendments were approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee, which is responsible for developing the Standards of Care. The American College of Cardiology reviewed and endorsed the section on CVD and risk management.
The Living Standards Update was published online in Diabetes Care.
CVD and risk management
In the Addendum to Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:
- “For patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease treated with maximum tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, addition of finerenone should be considered to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease progression. A”
- “Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be considered for treatment with finerenone to reduce cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression.”
- “In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, an SGLT2 inhibitor [with proven benefit in this patient population] is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure, hospitalizations for heart failure, and cardiovascular death. ”
In the section “Statin Treatment,” the addendum no longer states that “a prospective trial of a newer fibrate ... is ongoing,” because that trial investigating pemafibrate (Kowa), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha modulator (or fibrate), has been discontinued.
Chronic kidney disease and risk management
In the Addendum to Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:
- “Traditionally, eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine using a validated formula. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is preferred. ... Historically, a correction factor for muscle mass was included in a modified equation for African Americans; however, due to various issues with inequities, it was decided to the equation such that it applies to all. Hence, a committee was convened, resulting in the recommendation for immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the U.S.” (This is based on an National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation.)
- “Additionally, increased use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone.”
Evidence from clinical trials
The update is based on findings from the following clinical trials:
- Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD)
- Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD)
- FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD
- Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved)
- Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED-HF)
- Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes (PROMINENT).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As it gears up for the first in-person scientific sessions for 3 years, the American Diabetes Association has issued an addendum to its most recent annual clinical practice recommendations published in December 2021, the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, based on recent trial evidence and consensus.
The update informs clinicians about:
- The effect of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist (Kerendia) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
- The effect of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor on heart failure and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation to remove race in the formula for calculating estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
“This is the fifth year that we are able to update the Standards of Care after it has been published through our Living Standards of Care updates, making it possible to give diabetes care providers the most important information and the latest evidence relevant to their practice,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief scientific and medical officer, said in a press release from the organization.
The addendum, entitled, “Living Standards of Care,” updates Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” and Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” of the 2022 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes.
The amendments were approved by the ADA Professional Practice Committee, which is responsible for developing the Standards of Care. The American College of Cardiology reviewed and endorsed the section on CVD and risk management.
The Living Standards Update was published online in Diabetes Care.
CVD and risk management
In the Addendum to Section 10, “Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:
- “For patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease treated with maximum tolerated doses of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, addition of finerenone should be considered to improve cardiovascular outcomes and reduce the risk of chronic kidney disease progression. A”
- “Patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be considered for treatment with finerenone to reduce cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of chronic kidney disease progression.”
- “In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, an SGLT2 inhibitor [with proven benefit in this patient population] is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure, hospitalizations for heart failure, and cardiovascular death. ”
In the section “Statin Treatment,” the addendum no longer states that “a prospective trial of a newer fibrate ... is ongoing,” because that trial investigating pemafibrate (Kowa), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha modulator (or fibrate), has been discontinued.
Chronic kidney disease and risk management
In the Addendum to Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management,” the committee writes:
- “Traditionally, eGFR is calculated from serum creatinine using a validated formula. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation is preferred. ... Historically, a correction factor for muscle mass was included in a modified equation for African Americans; however, due to various issues with inequities, it was decided to the equation such that it applies to all. Hence, a committee was convened, resulting in the recommendation for immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the U.S.” (This is based on an National Kidney Foundation and American Society of Nephrology Task Force recommendation.)
- “Additionally, increased use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone.”
Evidence from clinical trials
The update is based on findings from the following clinical trials:
- Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD)
- Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD)
- FIDELITY, a prespecified pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD
- Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved)
- Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED-HF)
- Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes by Reducing Triglycerides in Patients with Diabetes (PROMINENT).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES CARE
Glofitamab prevails against r/r DLBCL
“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.
Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.
The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.
The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.
The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.
At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.
“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.
The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.
“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.
The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.
“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.
A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.
Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.
The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.
The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.
The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.
“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
More follow-up needed, but findings show promise
A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.
Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.
Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”
Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”
In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.
“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.
Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.
The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.
The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.
The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.
At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.
“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.
The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.
“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.
The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.
“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.
A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.
Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.
The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.
The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.
The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.
“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
More follow-up needed, but findings show promise
A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.
Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.
Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”
Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”
In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.
“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.
Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.
The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.
The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.
The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.
At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.
“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.
The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.
“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.
The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.
“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.
A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.
Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.
The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.
The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.
The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.
“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
More follow-up needed, but findings show promise
A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.
Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.
Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”
Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”
In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.
FROM ASCO 2022
‘Genetic’ height linked to peripheral neuropathy and certain skin and bone infections
, according to a study published in PLOS Genetics.
Prior studies have investigated height as a risk factor for chronic diseases, such as a higher risk for atrial fibrillation and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. It’s been consistently difficult, however, to eliminate the confounding influences of diet, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, and other environmental factors that may interfere with a person’s reaching their expected height based on their genes.
This study, however, was able to better parse those differences by using Mendelian randomization within the comprehensive clinical and genetic dataset of a national health care system biobank. Mendelian randomization uses “genetic instruments for exposures of interest under the assumption that genotype is less susceptible to confounding than measured exposures,” the authors explained. The findings confirmed previously suspected associations between height and a range of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions as well as revealing new associations with several other conditions.
Prior associations confirmed, new associations uncovered
The results confirmed that being tall is linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and varicose veins, and a lower risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The study also uncovered new associations between greater height and a higher risk of peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by damage to nerves on the extremities, as well as skin and bone infections, such as leg and foot ulcers.
The meta-analysis “identified five additional traits associated with genetically-predicted height,” wrote Sridharan Raghavan, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and colleagues. “Two were genitourinary conditions – erectile dysfunction and urinary retention – that can be associated with neuropathy, and a third was a phecode for nonspecific skin disorders that may be related to skin infections – consistent with the race/ethnicity stratified results.”
Removing potential confounders
F. Perry Wilson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study, said the findings were not particularly surprising overall, but it’s striking that the researchers had ”such a large cohort with such detailed electronic health records allowing for the comparison of genetic height with a variety of clinical outcomes.” He also noted the study’s strength in using Mendelian randomization so that the exposure is the predicted genetic height instead of a person’s measured height.
“This is key, since lots of things affect actual height – nutrition is an important one that could certainly be linked to disease as well,” Dr. Wilson said. ”By using genetic height, the authors remove these potential confounders. Since genetic height is “assigned” at birth (or conception), there is little opportunity for confounding. Of course, it is possible that some of the gene variants used to predict genetic height actually do something else, such as make you seek out less nutritious meals, but by and large this is how these types of studies need to be done.”
Height may impact over 100 clinical traits
The study relied on data from the U.S. Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program with 222,300 non-Hispanic White and 58,151 non-Hispanic Black participants. The researchers first estimated the likelihood of participants’ genetic height based on 3,290 genetic variants determined to affect genetic height in a recent European-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis. Then they compared these estimates with participants’ actual height in the VA medical record, adjusting for age, sex, and other genetic characteristics.
In doing so, the researchers found 345 clinical traits that were associated with the actual measured height in White participants plus another 17 clinical trials linked to actual measured height in Black participants. An overall 127 of these clinical traits were significantly associated with White participants’ genetically predicted height, and two of them were significantly associated with Black participants’ genetically predicted height.
In analyzing all these data together, the researchers were largely able to separate out those associations between genetically predicted height and certain health conditions from those associations between health conditions and a person’s actual measured height. They also determined that including body mass index as a covariate had little impact on the results. The researchers conducted the appropriate statistical correction to ensure the use of so many variables did not result in spurious statistical significance in some associations.
“Using genetic methods applied to the VA Million Veteran Program, we found evidence that adult height may impact over 100 clinical traits, including several conditions associated with poor outcomes and quality of life – peripheral neuropathy, lower extremity ulcers, and chronic venous insufficiency. We conclude that height may be an unrecognized nonmodifiable risk factor for several common conditions in adults.”
Height linked with health conditions
Genetically predicted height predicted a reduced risk of hyperlipidemia and hypertension independent of coronary heart disease, the analysis revealed. Genetically predicted height was also linked to an approximately 51% increased risk of atrial fibrillation in participants without coronary heart disease but, paradoxically, only a 39% increased risk in those with coronary heart disease, despite coronary heart disease being a risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Genetically predicted height was also associated with a greater risk of varicose veins in the legs and deep vein thrombosis.
Another novel association uncovered by the analysis was between women’s genetically predicted height and both asthma and nonspecific peripheral nerve disorders. “Whether these associations reflect differences by sex in disease pathophysiology related to height may warrant exploration in a sample with better balance between men and women,” the authors wrote. “In sum, our results suggest that an individual’s height may warrant consideration as a nonmodifiable predictor for several common conditions, particularly those affecting peripheral/distal extremities that are most physically impacted by tall stature.”
A substantial limitation of the study was its homogeneity of participants, who were 92% male with an average height of 176 cm and an average BMI of 30.1. The Black participants tended to be younger, with an average age of 58 compared with 64 years in the White participants, but the groups were otherwise similar in height and weight.* The database included data from Hispanic participants, but the researchers excluded these data because of the small sample size.
The smaller dataset for Black participants was a limitation as well as the fact that the genome-wide association study the researchers relied on came from a European population, which may not be as accurate in people with other ancestry, Dr. Wilson said. The bigger limitation, however, is what the findings’ clinical relevance is.
What does it all mean?
“Genetic height is in your genes – there is nothing to be done about it – so it is more of academic interest than clinical interest,” Dr. Wilson said. It’s not even clear whether incorporating a person’s height – actual or genetically predicted, if it could be easily determined for each person – into risk calculators. ”To know whether it would be beneficial to use height (or genetic height) as a risk factor, you’d need to examine each condition of interest, adjusting for all known risk factors, to see if height improved the prediction,” Dr. Wilson said. “I suspect for most conditions, the well-known risk factors would swamp height. For example, high genetic height might truly increase risk for neuropathy. But diabetes might increase the risk so much more that height is not particularly relevant.”
On the other hand, the fact that height in general has any potential influence at all on disease risk may inspire physicians to consider other risk factors in especially tall individuals.
”Physicians may find it interesting that we have some confirmation that height does increase the risk of certain conditions,” Dr. Wilson said. “While this is unlikely to dramatically change practice, they may be a bit more diligent in looking for other relevant risk factors for the diseases found in this study in their very tall patients.”
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the Boettcher Foundation’s Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, and a Linda Pechenik Montague Investigator award. One study coauthor is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The other authors and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures.
*Correction, 6/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the average age of Black participants.
, according to a study published in PLOS Genetics.
Prior studies have investigated height as a risk factor for chronic diseases, such as a higher risk for atrial fibrillation and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. It’s been consistently difficult, however, to eliminate the confounding influences of diet, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, and other environmental factors that may interfere with a person’s reaching their expected height based on their genes.
This study, however, was able to better parse those differences by using Mendelian randomization within the comprehensive clinical and genetic dataset of a national health care system biobank. Mendelian randomization uses “genetic instruments for exposures of interest under the assumption that genotype is less susceptible to confounding than measured exposures,” the authors explained. The findings confirmed previously suspected associations between height and a range of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions as well as revealing new associations with several other conditions.
Prior associations confirmed, new associations uncovered
The results confirmed that being tall is linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and varicose veins, and a lower risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The study also uncovered new associations between greater height and a higher risk of peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by damage to nerves on the extremities, as well as skin and bone infections, such as leg and foot ulcers.
The meta-analysis “identified five additional traits associated with genetically-predicted height,” wrote Sridharan Raghavan, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and colleagues. “Two were genitourinary conditions – erectile dysfunction and urinary retention – that can be associated with neuropathy, and a third was a phecode for nonspecific skin disorders that may be related to skin infections – consistent with the race/ethnicity stratified results.”
Removing potential confounders
F. Perry Wilson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study, said the findings were not particularly surprising overall, but it’s striking that the researchers had ”such a large cohort with such detailed electronic health records allowing for the comparison of genetic height with a variety of clinical outcomes.” He also noted the study’s strength in using Mendelian randomization so that the exposure is the predicted genetic height instead of a person’s measured height.
“This is key, since lots of things affect actual height – nutrition is an important one that could certainly be linked to disease as well,” Dr. Wilson said. ”By using genetic height, the authors remove these potential confounders. Since genetic height is “assigned” at birth (or conception), there is little opportunity for confounding. Of course, it is possible that some of the gene variants used to predict genetic height actually do something else, such as make you seek out less nutritious meals, but by and large this is how these types of studies need to be done.”
Height may impact over 100 clinical traits
The study relied on data from the U.S. Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program with 222,300 non-Hispanic White and 58,151 non-Hispanic Black participants. The researchers first estimated the likelihood of participants’ genetic height based on 3,290 genetic variants determined to affect genetic height in a recent European-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis. Then they compared these estimates with participants’ actual height in the VA medical record, adjusting for age, sex, and other genetic characteristics.
In doing so, the researchers found 345 clinical traits that were associated with the actual measured height in White participants plus another 17 clinical trials linked to actual measured height in Black participants. An overall 127 of these clinical traits were significantly associated with White participants’ genetically predicted height, and two of them were significantly associated with Black participants’ genetically predicted height.
In analyzing all these data together, the researchers were largely able to separate out those associations between genetically predicted height and certain health conditions from those associations between health conditions and a person’s actual measured height. They also determined that including body mass index as a covariate had little impact on the results. The researchers conducted the appropriate statistical correction to ensure the use of so many variables did not result in spurious statistical significance in some associations.
“Using genetic methods applied to the VA Million Veteran Program, we found evidence that adult height may impact over 100 clinical traits, including several conditions associated with poor outcomes and quality of life – peripheral neuropathy, lower extremity ulcers, and chronic venous insufficiency. We conclude that height may be an unrecognized nonmodifiable risk factor for several common conditions in adults.”
Height linked with health conditions
Genetically predicted height predicted a reduced risk of hyperlipidemia and hypertension independent of coronary heart disease, the analysis revealed. Genetically predicted height was also linked to an approximately 51% increased risk of atrial fibrillation in participants without coronary heart disease but, paradoxically, only a 39% increased risk in those with coronary heart disease, despite coronary heart disease being a risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Genetically predicted height was also associated with a greater risk of varicose veins in the legs and deep vein thrombosis.
Another novel association uncovered by the analysis was between women’s genetically predicted height and both asthma and nonspecific peripheral nerve disorders. “Whether these associations reflect differences by sex in disease pathophysiology related to height may warrant exploration in a sample with better balance between men and women,” the authors wrote. “In sum, our results suggest that an individual’s height may warrant consideration as a nonmodifiable predictor for several common conditions, particularly those affecting peripheral/distal extremities that are most physically impacted by tall stature.”
A substantial limitation of the study was its homogeneity of participants, who were 92% male with an average height of 176 cm and an average BMI of 30.1. The Black participants tended to be younger, with an average age of 58 compared with 64 years in the White participants, but the groups were otherwise similar in height and weight.* The database included data from Hispanic participants, but the researchers excluded these data because of the small sample size.
The smaller dataset for Black participants was a limitation as well as the fact that the genome-wide association study the researchers relied on came from a European population, which may not be as accurate in people with other ancestry, Dr. Wilson said. The bigger limitation, however, is what the findings’ clinical relevance is.
What does it all mean?
“Genetic height is in your genes – there is nothing to be done about it – so it is more of academic interest than clinical interest,” Dr. Wilson said. It’s not even clear whether incorporating a person’s height – actual or genetically predicted, if it could be easily determined for each person – into risk calculators. ”To know whether it would be beneficial to use height (or genetic height) as a risk factor, you’d need to examine each condition of interest, adjusting for all known risk factors, to see if height improved the prediction,” Dr. Wilson said. “I suspect for most conditions, the well-known risk factors would swamp height. For example, high genetic height might truly increase risk for neuropathy. But diabetes might increase the risk so much more that height is not particularly relevant.”
On the other hand, the fact that height in general has any potential influence at all on disease risk may inspire physicians to consider other risk factors in especially tall individuals.
”Physicians may find it interesting that we have some confirmation that height does increase the risk of certain conditions,” Dr. Wilson said. “While this is unlikely to dramatically change practice, they may be a bit more diligent in looking for other relevant risk factors for the diseases found in this study in their very tall patients.”
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the Boettcher Foundation’s Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, and a Linda Pechenik Montague Investigator award. One study coauthor is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The other authors and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures.
*Correction, 6/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the average age of Black participants.
, according to a study published in PLOS Genetics.
Prior studies have investigated height as a risk factor for chronic diseases, such as a higher risk for atrial fibrillation and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. It’s been consistently difficult, however, to eliminate the confounding influences of diet, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, and other environmental factors that may interfere with a person’s reaching their expected height based on their genes.
This study, however, was able to better parse those differences by using Mendelian randomization within the comprehensive clinical and genetic dataset of a national health care system biobank. Mendelian randomization uses “genetic instruments for exposures of interest under the assumption that genotype is less susceptible to confounding than measured exposures,” the authors explained. The findings confirmed previously suspected associations between height and a range of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions as well as revealing new associations with several other conditions.
Prior associations confirmed, new associations uncovered
The results confirmed that being tall is linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and varicose veins, and a lower risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The study also uncovered new associations between greater height and a higher risk of peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by damage to nerves on the extremities, as well as skin and bone infections, such as leg and foot ulcers.
The meta-analysis “identified five additional traits associated with genetically-predicted height,” wrote Sridharan Raghavan, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and colleagues. “Two were genitourinary conditions – erectile dysfunction and urinary retention – that can be associated with neuropathy, and a third was a phecode for nonspecific skin disorders that may be related to skin infections – consistent with the race/ethnicity stratified results.”
Removing potential confounders
F. Perry Wilson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study, said the findings were not particularly surprising overall, but it’s striking that the researchers had ”such a large cohort with such detailed electronic health records allowing for the comparison of genetic height with a variety of clinical outcomes.” He also noted the study’s strength in using Mendelian randomization so that the exposure is the predicted genetic height instead of a person’s measured height.
“This is key, since lots of things affect actual height – nutrition is an important one that could certainly be linked to disease as well,” Dr. Wilson said. ”By using genetic height, the authors remove these potential confounders. Since genetic height is “assigned” at birth (or conception), there is little opportunity for confounding. Of course, it is possible that some of the gene variants used to predict genetic height actually do something else, such as make you seek out less nutritious meals, but by and large this is how these types of studies need to be done.”
Height may impact over 100 clinical traits
The study relied on data from the U.S. Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program with 222,300 non-Hispanic White and 58,151 non-Hispanic Black participants. The researchers first estimated the likelihood of participants’ genetic height based on 3,290 genetic variants determined to affect genetic height in a recent European-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis. Then they compared these estimates with participants’ actual height in the VA medical record, adjusting for age, sex, and other genetic characteristics.
In doing so, the researchers found 345 clinical traits that were associated with the actual measured height in White participants plus another 17 clinical trials linked to actual measured height in Black participants. An overall 127 of these clinical traits were significantly associated with White participants’ genetically predicted height, and two of them were significantly associated with Black participants’ genetically predicted height.
In analyzing all these data together, the researchers were largely able to separate out those associations between genetically predicted height and certain health conditions from those associations between health conditions and a person’s actual measured height. They also determined that including body mass index as a covariate had little impact on the results. The researchers conducted the appropriate statistical correction to ensure the use of so many variables did not result in spurious statistical significance in some associations.
“Using genetic methods applied to the VA Million Veteran Program, we found evidence that adult height may impact over 100 clinical traits, including several conditions associated with poor outcomes and quality of life – peripheral neuropathy, lower extremity ulcers, and chronic venous insufficiency. We conclude that height may be an unrecognized nonmodifiable risk factor for several common conditions in adults.”
Height linked with health conditions
Genetically predicted height predicted a reduced risk of hyperlipidemia and hypertension independent of coronary heart disease, the analysis revealed. Genetically predicted height was also linked to an approximately 51% increased risk of atrial fibrillation in participants without coronary heart disease but, paradoxically, only a 39% increased risk in those with coronary heart disease, despite coronary heart disease being a risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Genetically predicted height was also associated with a greater risk of varicose veins in the legs and deep vein thrombosis.
Another novel association uncovered by the analysis was between women’s genetically predicted height and both asthma and nonspecific peripheral nerve disorders. “Whether these associations reflect differences by sex in disease pathophysiology related to height may warrant exploration in a sample with better balance between men and women,” the authors wrote. “In sum, our results suggest that an individual’s height may warrant consideration as a nonmodifiable predictor for several common conditions, particularly those affecting peripheral/distal extremities that are most physically impacted by tall stature.”
A substantial limitation of the study was its homogeneity of participants, who were 92% male with an average height of 176 cm and an average BMI of 30.1. The Black participants tended to be younger, with an average age of 58 compared with 64 years in the White participants, but the groups were otherwise similar in height and weight.* The database included data from Hispanic participants, but the researchers excluded these data because of the small sample size.
The smaller dataset for Black participants was a limitation as well as the fact that the genome-wide association study the researchers relied on came from a European population, which may not be as accurate in people with other ancestry, Dr. Wilson said. The bigger limitation, however, is what the findings’ clinical relevance is.
What does it all mean?
“Genetic height is in your genes – there is nothing to be done about it – so it is more of academic interest than clinical interest,” Dr. Wilson said. It’s not even clear whether incorporating a person’s height – actual or genetically predicted, if it could be easily determined for each person – into risk calculators. ”To know whether it would be beneficial to use height (or genetic height) as a risk factor, you’d need to examine each condition of interest, adjusting for all known risk factors, to see if height improved the prediction,” Dr. Wilson said. “I suspect for most conditions, the well-known risk factors would swamp height. For example, high genetic height might truly increase risk for neuropathy. But diabetes might increase the risk so much more that height is not particularly relevant.”
On the other hand, the fact that height in general has any potential influence at all on disease risk may inspire physicians to consider other risk factors in especially tall individuals.
”Physicians may find it interesting that we have some confirmation that height does increase the risk of certain conditions,” Dr. Wilson said. “While this is unlikely to dramatically change practice, they may be a bit more diligent in looking for other relevant risk factors for the diseases found in this study in their very tall patients.”
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the Boettcher Foundation’s Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, and a Linda Pechenik Montague Investigator award. One study coauthor is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The other authors and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures.
*Correction, 6/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the average age of Black participants.
FROM PLOS GENETICS