Key clinical point: Heavy alcohol use strongly contributes to increased early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) risk irrespective of polygenic risk score (PRS) levels. Abstinence from heavy drinking may reduce EOCRC risk to a degree equivalent to having a much lower genetic risk.

Major finding: High (≥25 g/day) vs. low (0.1 to <25 g/day) lifetime average alcohol consumption was strongly associated with increased EOCRC risk (odds ratio 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.8). The effect of high lifetime alcohol consumption on EOCRC was equivalent to that of having 47 percentiles higher PRS (genetic risk equivalent 47; 95% CI 12-82).

Study details: This retrospective study included 5104 patients with colorectal cancer and 4131 non-colorectal cancer controls from the large, population-based German DACHS study.

Disclosures: The DACHS study was supported by the German Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen X et al. Alcohol consumption, polygenic risk score, and early- and late-onset colorectal cancer risk. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;49:101460 (May 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101460

Key clinical point: Heavy alcohol use strongly contributes to increased early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) risk irrespective of polygenic risk score (PRS) levels. Abstinence from heavy drinking may reduce EOCRC risk to a degree equivalent to having a much lower genetic risk.

Major finding: High (≥25 g/day) vs. low (0.1 to <25 g/day) lifetime average alcohol consumption was strongly associated with increased EOCRC risk (odds ratio 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.8). The effect of high lifetime alcohol consumption on EOCRC was equivalent to that of having 47 percentiles higher PRS (genetic risk equivalent 47; 95% CI 12-82).

Study details: This retrospective study included 5104 patients with colorectal cancer and 4131 non-colorectal cancer controls from the large, population-based German DACHS study.

Disclosures: The DACHS study was supported by the German Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen X et al. Alcohol consumption, polygenic risk score, and early- and late-onset colorectal cancer risk. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;49:101460 (May 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101460

Key clinical point: Heavy alcohol use strongly contributes to increased early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) risk irrespective of polygenic risk score (PRS) levels. Abstinence from heavy drinking may reduce EOCRC risk to a degree equivalent to having a much lower genetic risk.

Major finding: High (≥25 g/day) vs. low (0.1 to <25 g/day) lifetime average alcohol consumption was strongly associated with increased EOCRC risk (odds ratio 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.8). The effect of high lifetime alcohol consumption on EOCRC was equivalent to that of having 47 percentiles higher PRS (genetic risk equivalent 47; 95% CI 12-82).

Study details: This retrospective study included 5104 patients with colorectal cancer and 4131 non-colorectal cancer controls from the large, population-based German DACHS study.

Disclosures: The DACHS study was supported by the German Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen X et al. Alcohol consumption, polygenic risk score, and early- and late-onset colorectal cancer risk. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;49:101460 (May 20). Doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101460

Key clinical point: The association between metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and biopsy of nontumor sites after biopsy of an initial CRC in the same colonoscopy is not significant.

Major finding: Nontumor site biopsy after initial CRC biopsy was not significantly associated with the risk for metachronous CRC in the colonic segment of the additional biopsy site (adjusted odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 0.77-6.81).

Study details: This retrospective case-control study included 45 adult patients, diagnosed with CRC by colonoscopy with biopsy who underwent complete curative resection and were re-diagnosed with CRC within 6 months to 4 years of the initial diagnosis, and 212 matched control individuals.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Consortium, US National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lam AY et al. Biopsy of non-tumor sites after biopsy of a colorectal cancer is not associated with metachronous cancers: a case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (May 26). Doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.05.006

Key clinical point: The association between metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and biopsy of nontumor sites after biopsy of an initial CRC in the same colonoscopy is not significant.

Major finding: Nontumor site biopsy after initial CRC biopsy was not significantly associated with the risk for metachronous CRC in the colonic segment of the additional biopsy site (adjusted odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 0.77-6.81).

Study details: This retrospective case-control study included 45 adult patients, diagnosed with CRC by colonoscopy with biopsy who underwent complete curative resection and were re-diagnosed with CRC within 6 months to 4 years of the initial diagnosis, and 212 matched control individuals.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Consortium, US National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lam AY et al. Biopsy of non-tumor sites after biopsy of a colorectal cancer is not associated with metachronous cancers: a case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (May 26). Doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.05.006

Key clinical point: The association between metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and biopsy of nontumor sites after biopsy of an initial CRC in the same colonoscopy is not significant.

Major finding: Nontumor site biopsy after initial CRC biopsy was not significantly associated with the risk for metachronous CRC in the colonic segment of the additional biopsy site (adjusted odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 0.77-6.81).

Study details: This retrospective case-control study included 45 adult patients, diagnosed with CRC by colonoscopy with biopsy who underwent complete curative resection and were re-diagnosed with CRC within 6 months to 4 years of the initial diagnosis, and 212 matched control individuals.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Consortium, US National Cancer Institute. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lam AY et al. Biopsy of non-tumor sites after biopsy of a colorectal cancer is not associated with metachronous cancers: a case-control study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (May 26). Doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.05.006

Key clinical point: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a clear-cut attrition across subsequent lines of therapy, with most patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC opting for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-containing regimens as the treatment of choice after the second progressive disease (PD).

Major finding: The number of patients receiving subsequent systemic treatment decreased with each progressive line of therapy (53%, 27%, and 11% of patients received treatment after the second, third, and fourth PD, respectively). After the second PD, anti-EGFR-containing regimens were preferred by most (67%) patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

Study details: This pooled analysis study included 1187 patients with mCRC from two phase 3 trials, TRIBE and TRIBE2, who received fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOXIRI) + bevacizumab or doublets (fluorouracil + oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] or fluorouracil + irinotecan [FOLFIRI]) + bevacizumab as the first-line therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the GONO and ARCO Foundations. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for or receiving honoraria or research funding from various organizations.

Source: Rossini D et al. Treatments after second progression in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies. Eur J Cancer. 2022;170:64-72 (May 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.04.019

Key clinical point: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a clear-cut attrition across subsequent lines of therapy, with most patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC opting for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-containing regimens as the treatment of choice after the second progressive disease (PD).

Major finding: The number of patients receiving subsequent systemic treatment decreased with each progressive line of therapy (53%, 27%, and 11% of patients received treatment after the second, third, and fourth PD, respectively). After the second PD, anti-EGFR-containing regimens were preferred by most (67%) patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

Study details: This pooled analysis study included 1187 patients with mCRC from two phase 3 trials, TRIBE and TRIBE2, who received fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOXIRI) + bevacizumab or doublets (fluorouracil + oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] or fluorouracil + irinotecan [FOLFIRI]) + bevacizumab as the first-line therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the GONO and ARCO Foundations. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for or receiving honoraria or research funding from various organizations.

Source: Rossini D et al. Treatments after second progression in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies. Eur J Cancer. 2022;170:64-72 (May 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.04.019

Key clinical point: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a clear-cut attrition across subsequent lines of therapy, with most patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC opting for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-containing regimens as the treatment of choice after the second progressive disease (PD).

Major finding: The number of patients receiving subsequent systemic treatment decreased with each progressive line of therapy (53%, 27%, and 11% of patients received treatment after the second, third, and fourth PD, respectively). After the second PD, anti-EGFR-containing regimens were preferred by most (67%) patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

Study details: This pooled analysis study included 1187 patients with mCRC from two phase 3 trials, TRIBE and TRIBE2, who received fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOXIRI) + bevacizumab or doublets (fluorouracil + oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] or fluorouracil + irinotecan [FOLFIRI]) + bevacizumab as the first-line therapy.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the GONO and ARCO Foundations. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for or receiving honoraria or research funding from various organizations.

Source: Rossini D et al. Treatments after second progression in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies. Eur J Cancer. 2022;170:64-72 (May 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.04.019

Key clinical point: The addition of atezolizumab to the first-line FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) + bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) without compromising safety.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, patients receiving FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab and atezolizumab vs. FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had a significantly longer median PFS (13.1 vs. 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018), with serious adverse events being reported in 27% vs. 26% of patients, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a phase 2 study, AtezoTRIBE, that included 218 adult patients with previously untreated mCRC who were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (n = 73) or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab and atezolizumab (n = 145).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the GONO and ARCO Foundations, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche. Some authors declared serving as consultants/advisors for or receiving honoraria or speaker/consulting fees from various sources, including Roche.

Source: Antoniotti C et al. Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AtezoTRIBE): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (May 27). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00274-1

Key clinical point: The addition of atezolizumab to the first-line FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) + bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) without compromising safety.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, patients receiving FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab and atezolizumab vs. FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had a significantly longer median PFS (13.1 vs. 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018), with serious adverse events being reported in 27% vs. 26% of patients, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a phase 2 study, AtezoTRIBE, that included 218 adult patients with previously untreated mCRC who were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (n = 73) or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab and atezolizumab (n = 145).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the GONO and ARCO Foundations, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche. Some authors declared serving as consultants/advisors for or receiving honoraria or speaker/consulting fees from various sources, including Roche.

Source: Antoniotti C et al. Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AtezoTRIBE): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (May 27). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00274-1

Key clinical point: The addition of atezolizumab to the first-line FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) + bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) without compromising safety.

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, patients receiving FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab and atezolizumab vs. FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had a significantly longer median PFS (13.1 vs. 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018), with serious adverse events being reported in 27% vs. 26% of patients, respectively.

Study details: The data come from a phase 2 study, AtezoTRIBE, that included 218 adult patients with previously untreated mCRC who were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (n = 73) or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab and atezolizumab (n = 145).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the GONO and ARCO Foundations, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche. Some authors declared serving as consultants/advisors for or receiving honoraria or speaker/consulting fees from various sources, including Roche.

Source: Antoniotti C et al. Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AtezoTRIBE): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 (May 27). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00274-1

Key clinical point: The modified triplet (modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan [mFOLFOXIRI]) + panitumumab vs. the doublet (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) + panitumumab does not show improved activity as initial therapy for RAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Major finding: Patients receiving mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab vs. FOLFOX + panitumumab showed no significant difference in the objective response rate (73% vs. 76%; odds ratio 0.87; P = .526) and median progression-free survival (12.7 vs. 12.3 months; hazard ratio 0.88; P = .277).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 TRIPLETE study that included 435 adult patients with RAS and BRAF wt mCRC who were randomly assigned to receive mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab (n = 218) or FOLFOX + panitumumab (n = 217).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the GONO Foundation and Amgen. Some authors declared serving as consultants/advisors or members of the speaker's bureau for or receiving honoraria, research funding, or travel and accommodation fees from various sources, including Amgen.

Source: Rossini D et al. Upfront modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab versus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin plus panitumumab for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase III TRIPLETE Study by GONO. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00839

Key clinical point: The modified triplet (modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan [mFOLFOXIRI]) + panitumumab vs. the doublet (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) + panitumumab does not show improved activity as initial therapy for RAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Major finding: Patients receiving mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab vs. FOLFOX + panitumumab showed no significant difference in the objective response rate (73% vs. 76%; odds ratio 0.87; P = .526) and median progression-free survival (12.7 vs. 12.3 months; hazard ratio 0.88; P = .277).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 TRIPLETE study that included 435 adult patients with RAS and BRAF wt mCRC who were randomly assigned to receive mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab (n = 218) or FOLFOX + panitumumab (n = 217).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the GONO Foundation and Amgen. Some authors declared serving as consultants/advisors or members of the speaker's bureau for or receiving honoraria, research funding, or travel and accommodation fees from various sources, including Amgen.

Source: Rossini D et al. Upfront modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab versus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin plus panitumumab for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase III TRIPLETE Study by GONO. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00839

Key clinical point: The modified triplet (modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan [mFOLFOXIRI]) + panitumumab vs. the doublet (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) + panitumumab does not show improved activity as initial therapy for RAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Major finding: Patients receiving mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab vs. FOLFOX + panitumumab showed no significant difference in the objective response rate (73% vs. 76%; odds ratio 0.87; P = .526) and median progression-free survival (12.7 vs. 12.3 months; hazard ratio 0.88; P = .277).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 TRIPLETE study that included 435 adult patients with RAS and BRAF wt mCRC who were randomly assigned to receive mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab (n = 218) or FOLFOX + panitumumab (n = 217).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the GONO Foundation and Amgen. Some authors declared serving as consultants/advisors or members of the speaker's bureau for or receiving honoraria, research funding, or travel and accommodation fees from various sources, including Amgen.

Source: Rossini D et al. Upfront modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab versus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin plus panitumumab for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase III TRIPLETE Study by GONO. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00839

Key clinical point: Greater glycemic variability measured as the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) level was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a well-controlled glucose status.

Major finding: Compared with patients with a %CV level of ≤20%, those with a %CV level of 20%-25% (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.78-1.73), 25%-30% (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.89-2.15), 30%-35% (aHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.77-2.29), and >35% (aHR 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.52) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: This study was a part of the INDIGO study including 1839 patients with T2D who reached continuous glucose monitoring glycemic targets and were classified into five groups by %CV level.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mo Y et al. Impact of short-term glycemic variability on risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients with well-controlled glucose profile by continuous glucose monitoring: A prospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;189:109940 (Jun 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109940

Key clinical point: Greater glycemic variability measured as the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) level was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a well-controlled glucose status.

Major finding: Compared with patients with a %CV level of ≤20%, those with a %CV level of 20%-25% (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.78-1.73), 25%-30% (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.89-2.15), 30%-35% (aHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.77-2.29), and >35% (aHR 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.52) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: This study was a part of the INDIGO study including 1839 patients with T2D who reached continuous glucose monitoring glycemic targets and were classified into five groups by %CV level.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mo Y et al. Impact of short-term glycemic variability on risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients with well-controlled glucose profile by continuous glucose monitoring: A prospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;189:109940 (Jun 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109940

Key clinical point: Greater glycemic variability measured as the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) level was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a well-controlled glucose status.

Major finding: Compared with patients with a %CV level of ≤20%, those with a %CV level of 20%-25% (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.78-1.73), 25%-30% (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.89-2.15), 30%-35% (aHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.77-2.29), and >35% (aHR 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.52) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: This study was a part of the INDIGO study including 1839 patients with T2D who reached continuous glucose monitoring glycemic targets and were classified into five groups by %CV level.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mo Y et al. Impact of short-term glycemic variability on risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients with well-controlled glucose profile by continuous glucose monitoring: A prospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;189:109940 (Jun 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109940

Key clinical point: Monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) was significantly associated with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: Each 0.1 unit increase in MLR increased the risk for PDR by 46% (adjusted odds ratio 1.46; P = .014), with the effects being stable across different subgroups stratified by age, sex, hemoglobin, and glycated hemoglobin categories.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study of 367 patients with T2D and diabetic retinopathy, of which 27% were diagnosed with PDR.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang H et al. Association of monocyte-lymphocyte ratio and proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the U.S. population with type 2 diabetes. J Transl Med. 2022;20:219 (May 13). Doi: 10.1186/s12967-022-03425-4

Key clinical point: Monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) was significantly associated with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: Each 0.1 unit increase in MLR increased the risk for PDR by 46% (adjusted odds ratio 1.46; P = .014), with the effects being stable across different subgroups stratified by age, sex, hemoglobin, and glycated hemoglobin categories.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study of 367 patients with T2D and diabetic retinopathy, of which 27% were diagnosed with PDR.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang H et al. Association of monocyte-lymphocyte ratio and proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the U.S. population with type 2 diabetes. J Transl Med. 2022;20:219 (May 13). Doi: 10.1186/s12967-022-03425-4

Key clinical point: Monocyte-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) was significantly associated with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: Each 0.1 unit increase in MLR increased the risk for PDR by 46% (adjusted odds ratio 1.46; P = .014), with the effects being stable across different subgroups stratified by age, sex, hemoglobin, and glycated hemoglobin categories.

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study of 367 patients with T2D and diabetic retinopathy, of which 27% were diagnosed with PDR.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang H et al. Association of monocyte-lymphocyte ratio and proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the U.S. population with type 2 diabetes. J Transl Med. 2022;20:219 (May 13). Doi: 10.1186/s12967-022-03425-4

Key clinical point: Greater glycemic variability measured as the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) level was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a well-controlled glucose status.

Major finding: Compared with patients with a %CV level of ≤20%, those with a %CV level of 20%-25% (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.78-1.73), 25%-30% (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.89-2.15), 30%-35% (aHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.77-2.29), and >35% (aHR 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.52) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: This study was a part of the INDIGO study including 1839 patients with T2D who reached continuous glucose monitoring glycemic targets and were classified into five groups by %CV level.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mo Y et al. Impact of short-term glycemic variability on risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients with well-controlled glucose profile by continuous glucose monitoring: A prospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;189:109940 (Jun 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109940

Key clinical point: Greater glycemic variability measured as the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) level was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a well-controlled glucose status.

Major finding: Compared with patients with a %CV level of ≤20%, those with a %CV level of 20%-25% (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.78-1.73), 25%-30% (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.89-2.15), 30%-35% (aHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.77-2.29), and >35% (aHR 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.52) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: This study was a part of the INDIGO study including 1839 patients with T2D who reached continuous glucose monitoring glycemic targets and were classified into five groups by %CV level.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mo Y et al. Impact of short-term glycemic variability on risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients with well-controlled glucose profile by continuous glucose monitoring: A prospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;189:109940 (Jun 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109940

Key clinical point: Greater glycemic variability measured as the coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV) level was associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a well-controlled glucose status.

Major finding: Compared with patients with a %CV level of ≤20%, those with a %CV level of 20%-25% (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.78-1.73), 25%-30% (aHR 1.38; 95% CI 0.89-2.15), 30%-35% (aHR 1.33; 95% CI 0.77-2.29), and >35% (aHR 2.26; 95% CI 1.13-4.52) had a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Study details: This study was a part of the INDIGO study including 1839 patients with T2D who reached continuous glucose monitoring glycemic targets and were classified into five groups by %CV level.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mo Y et al. Impact of short-term glycemic variability on risk of all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes patients with well-controlled glucose profile by continuous glucose monitoring: A prospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;189:109940 (Jun 1). Doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2022.109940

Key clinical point: Addition of low-dose (0.25 mg/day) vs. standard-dose (0.5 mg/day) lobeglitazone to metformin plus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) therapy led to noninferior glucose lowering effects and fewer adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

Major finding: At week 24, the mean glycated hemoglobin level in the low-dose vs. standard-dose lobeglitazone group was 6.87% ± 0.54% vs. 6.68% ±0 .46%, respectively, with a between-group difference of 0.18% (95% Cl 0.017%-0.345%) showing noninferiority of the low-dose to standard-dose treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent in the standard-dose vs. low-dose group.

Study details: This was a phase 4 study including 134 patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin plus DPP4i therapy who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (n = 67) or standard-dose (n = 67) lobeglitazone.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a research grant from Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical

Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Source: Ryang S et al. A double-blind, Randomized controlled trial on glucose-lowering EFfects and safety of adding 0.25 or 0.5 mg lobeglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with INadequate control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy: REFIND study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 (May 17). Doi: 10.1111/dom.14766.

Key clinical point: Addition of low-dose (0.25 mg/day) vs. standard-dose (0.5 mg/day) lobeglitazone to metformin plus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) therapy led to noninferior glucose lowering effects and fewer adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

Major finding: At week 24, the mean glycated hemoglobin level in the low-dose vs. standard-dose lobeglitazone group was 6.87% ± 0.54% vs. 6.68% ±0 .46%, respectively, with a between-group difference of 0.18% (95% Cl 0.017%-0.345%) showing noninferiority of the low-dose to standard-dose treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent in the standard-dose vs. low-dose group.

Study details: This was a phase 4 study including 134 patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin plus DPP4i therapy who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (n = 67) or standard-dose (n = 67) lobeglitazone.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a research grant from Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical

Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Source: Ryang S et al. A double-blind, Randomized controlled trial on glucose-lowering EFfects and safety of adding 0.25 or 0.5 mg lobeglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with INadequate control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy: REFIND study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 (May 17). Doi: 10.1111/dom.14766.

Key clinical point: Addition of low-dose (0.25 mg/day) vs. standard-dose (0.5 mg/day) lobeglitazone to metformin plus dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) therapy led to noninferior glucose lowering effects and fewer adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

Major finding: At week 24, the mean glycated hemoglobin level in the low-dose vs. standard-dose lobeglitazone group was 6.87% ± 0.54% vs. 6.68% ±0 .46%, respectively, with a between-group difference of 0.18% (95% Cl 0.017%-0.345%) showing noninferiority of the low-dose to standard-dose treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent in the standard-dose vs. low-dose group.

Study details: This was a phase 4 study including 134 patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin plus DPP4i therapy who were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (n = 67) or standard-dose (n = 67) lobeglitazone.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a research grant from Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical

Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Source: Ryang S et al. A double-blind, Randomized controlled trial on glucose-lowering EFfects and safety of adding 0.25 or 0.5 mg lobeglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with INadequate control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy: REFIND study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 (May 17). Doi: 10.1111/dom.14766.

Key clinical point: Obesity appeared to be a protective factor for the development of diabetic macular edema (DME) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), whereas the waist-to-height ratio appeared to be a significant risk factor.

Major finding: Obesity was associated with a lower risk for DME (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.40; P = .041) and VTDR (aOR 0.37; P = .023), whereas a higher waist-to-height ratio was associated with a higher risk for DME (aOR 3.04; P = .041) and VTDR (aOR 2.74; P = .048), with all associations being more significant in women.

Study details: Findings are from an ongoing prospective study that included 2305 patients with T2D.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangzhou Science & Technology Plan of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Li W et al. Association of different kinds of obesity with diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open. 2023;12:e056332 (May 19). Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056332

Key clinical point: Obesity appeared to be a protective factor for the development of diabetic macular edema (DME) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), whereas the waist-to-height ratio appeared to be a significant risk factor.

Major finding: Obesity was associated with a lower risk for DME (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.40; P = .041) and VTDR (aOR 0.37; P = .023), whereas a higher waist-to-height ratio was associated with a higher risk for DME (aOR 3.04; P = .041) and VTDR (aOR 2.74; P = .048), with all associations being more significant in women.

Study details: Findings are from an ongoing prospective study that included 2305 patients with T2D.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangzhou Science & Technology Plan of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Li W et al. Association of different kinds of obesity with diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open. 2023;12:e056332 (May 19). Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056332

Key clinical point: Obesity appeared to be a protective factor for the development of diabetic macular edema (DME) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), whereas the waist-to-height ratio appeared to be a significant risk factor.

Major finding: Obesity was associated with a lower risk for DME (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.40; P = .041) and VTDR (aOR 0.37; P = .023), whereas a higher waist-to-height ratio was associated with a higher risk for DME (aOR 3.04; P = .041) and VTDR (aOR 2.74; P = .048), with all associations being more significant in women.

Study details: Findings are from an ongoing prospective study that included 2305 patients with T2D.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangzhou Science & Technology Plan of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Li W et al. Association of different kinds of obesity with diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open. 2023;12:e056332 (May 19). Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056332