Clinical Topics & News

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To be cost effective, compared with metformin, for initial therapy for type 2 diabetes, prices for a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist would have to fall by at least 70% and at least 90%, respectively, according to estimates.

Thinkstock Photos

The study, modeled on U.S. patients, by Jin G. Choi, MD, and colleagues, was published online Oct. 3 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The researchers simulated the lifetime incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs associated with three different first-line treatment strategies – metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or a GLP-1 agonist – in U.S. patients with untreated type 2 diabetes.

Compared with patients who received initial treatment with metformin, those who received one of the newer drugs had 4.4% to 5.2% lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

However, to be cost-effective at under $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), SGLT2 inhibitors would need to cost less than $5 a day ($1,800 a year), and GLP-1 agonists would have to cost less than $6 a day ($2,100 a year), a lot less than now.

Knowing how expensive these drugs are, “I am not surprised” that the model predicts that the price would have to drop so much to make them cost-effective, compared with first-line treatment with metformin, senior author Neda Laiteerapong, MD, said in an interview.

“But I am disappointed,” she said, because these drugs are very effective, and if the prices were lower, more people could benefit.

“In the interest of improving access to high-quality care in the United States, our study results indicate the need to reduce SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist medication costs substantially for patients with type 2 [diabetes] to improve health outcomes and prevent exacerbating diabetes health disparities,” the researchers conclude.

One way that the newer drugs might be more widely affordable is if the government became involved, possibly by passing a law similar to the Affordable Insulin Now Act, speculated Dr. Laiteerapong, who is associate director at the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy, University of Chicago.
 

‘Current prices too high to encourage first-line adoption’

Guidelines recommend the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as second-line therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes, but it has not been clear if clinical benefits would outweigh costs for use as first-line therapies.

“Although clinical trials have demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of these newer drugs, they are hundreds of times more expensive than other ... diabetes drugs,” the researchers note.

On the other hand, costs may fall in the coming years when these new drugs come off-patent.

The current study was designed to help inform future clinical guidelines.

The researchers created a population simulation model based on the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS OM2) for diabetes-related complications and mortality, with added information about hypoglycemic events, quality of life, and U.S. costs. 

The researchers also identified a nationally representative sample of people who would be eligible to start first-line diabetes therapy when their A1c reached 7% for the model. 

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2013-2016), the researchers identified about 7.3 million U.S. adults aged 18 and older with self-reported diabetes or an A1c greater than 6.5% with no reported use of diabetes medications.

Patients were an average age of 55, and 55% were women. They had had diabetes for an average of 4.2 years, and 36% had a history of diabetes complications.

The model projected that patients would have an improved life expectancy of 3.0 and 3.4 months from first-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, respectively, compared with initial therapy with metformin due to reduced rates of macrovascular disease.  

“However, the current drug costs would be too high to encourage their adoption as first-line for usual clinical practice,” the researchers report.
 

‘Disparities could remain for decades’

Generic SGLT2 inhibitors could enter the marketplace shortly, because one of two dapagliflozin patents expired in October 2020 and approval for generic alternatives has been sought from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Choi and colleagues note.

However, it could still take decades for medication prices to drop low enough to become affordable, the group cautions. For example, a generic GLP-1 agonist became available in 2017, but costs remain high.

“Without external incentives,” the group writes, “limited access to these drug classes will likely persist (for example, due to higher copays or requirements for prior authorizations), as will further diabetes disparities – for decades into the future – because of differential access to care due to insurance (for example, private vs. public), which often tracks race and ethnicity.”

The study was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Choi was supported by a National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging grant. Dr. Laiteerapong and other co-authors are members of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research at the University of Chicago. Dr. Choi and Dr. Laiteerapong have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A growing number of Americans with cardiovascular disease (CVD) have limited or uncertain access to food, results of a new study suggest.

An analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) representing more than 300 million American adults found that, overall, 38.1% of people with cardiovascular disease were food insecure in 2017-2019.

©Amanda Grandfield/iStockphoto.com

Uphill battle

Johanna Contreras, MD, advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, treats food insecure cardiovascular patients in her practice and tries to educate them about good nutrition. But it is an uphill battle.

“A lot of my patients live in the South Bronx. They have hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and there are no grocery stores where they can buy fresh vegetables. I talk to them about eating healthy. They tell me it’s impossible. The stores only have pre-packaged foods. So even in the South Bronx, even though it is in New York, it is very hard to get fresh food. And when it is available, it is very expensive,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization.

“Fresh pineapples can cost $8. A fast-food burger costs $3. So that is what they buy: It’s what they can afford. Even the store managers don’t want to stock fresh produce because it can spoil. They open stores, like Whole Foods, but in the more affluent neighborhoods. They should open one in poor neighborhoods,” she said.

Dr. Contreras says she spends much of her time educating her patients about good nutrition. She asks them to keep a food diary and analyzes the results at each visit.

“I look at what they eat, and I try to see how I can use this information in a good way. I advise them to use frozen foods, and avoid canned, because it is a lot healthier. I am pragmatic, because I know that if I tell my patients to eat salmon, for example, they aren’t going to be able to afford it, if they can even access it.”

She also informs them about relatively healthy fast-food choices.

“I tell them to order 100% fruit juice, water, or milk when they go to McDonalds or other fast-food places. So I think this study is very important. Food insecurity is a very important component of cardiovascular disease, and unfortunately, minority communities are where this occurs.”

Dr. Brandt and Dr. Contreras report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A growing number of Americans with cardiovascular disease (CVD) have limited or uncertain access to food, results of a new study suggest.

An analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) representing more than 300 million American adults found that, overall, 38.1% of people with cardiovascular disease were food insecure in 2017-2019.

©Amanda Grandfield/iStockphoto.com

Uphill battle

Johanna Contreras, MD, advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, treats food insecure cardiovascular patients in her practice and tries to educate them about good nutrition. But it is an uphill battle.

“A lot of my patients live in the South Bronx. They have hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and there are no grocery stores where they can buy fresh vegetables. I talk to them about eating healthy. They tell me it’s impossible. The stores only have pre-packaged foods. So even in the South Bronx, even though it is in New York, it is very hard to get fresh food. And when it is available, it is very expensive,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization.

“Fresh pineapples can cost $8. A fast-food burger costs $3. So that is what they buy: It’s what they can afford. Even the store managers don’t want to stock fresh produce because it can spoil. They open stores, like Whole Foods, but in the more affluent neighborhoods. They should open one in poor neighborhoods,” she said.

Dr. Contreras says she spends much of her time educating her patients about good nutrition. She asks them to keep a food diary and analyzes the results at each visit.

“I look at what they eat, and I try to see how I can use this information in a good way. I advise them to use frozen foods, and avoid canned, because it is a lot healthier. I am pragmatic, because I know that if I tell my patients to eat salmon, for example, they aren’t going to be able to afford it, if they can even access it.”

She also informs them about relatively healthy fast-food choices.

“I tell them to order 100% fruit juice, water, or milk when they go to McDonalds or other fast-food places. So I think this study is very important. Food insecurity is a very important component of cardiovascular disease, and unfortunately, minority communities are where this occurs.”

Dr. Brandt and Dr. Contreras report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A growing number of Americans with cardiovascular disease (CVD) have limited or uncertain access to food, results of a new study suggest.

An analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) representing more than 300 million American adults found that, overall, 38.1% of people with cardiovascular disease were food insecure in 2017-2019.

©Amanda Grandfield/iStockphoto.com

Uphill battle

Johanna Contreras, MD, advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, treats food insecure cardiovascular patients in her practice and tries to educate them about good nutrition. But it is an uphill battle.

“A lot of my patients live in the South Bronx. They have hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and there are no grocery stores where they can buy fresh vegetables. I talk to them about eating healthy. They tell me it’s impossible. The stores only have pre-packaged foods. So even in the South Bronx, even though it is in New York, it is very hard to get fresh food. And when it is available, it is very expensive,” Dr. Contreras told this news organization.

“Fresh pineapples can cost $8. A fast-food burger costs $3. So that is what they buy: It’s what they can afford. Even the store managers don’t want to stock fresh produce because it can spoil. They open stores, like Whole Foods, but in the more affluent neighborhoods. They should open one in poor neighborhoods,” she said.

Dr. Contreras says she spends much of her time educating her patients about good nutrition. She asks them to keep a food diary and analyzes the results at each visit.

“I look at what they eat, and I try to see how I can use this information in a good way. I advise them to use frozen foods, and avoid canned, because it is a lot healthier. I am pragmatic, because I know that if I tell my patients to eat salmon, for example, they aren’t going to be able to afford it, if they can even access it.”

She also informs them about relatively healthy fast-food choices.

“I tell them to order 100% fruit juice, water, or milk when they go to McDonalds or other fast-food places. So I think this study is very important. Food insecurity is a very important component of cardiovascular disease, and unfortunately, minority communities are where this occurs.”

Dr. Brandt and Dr. Contreras report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early-onset cancer – often defined as cancers diagnosed in adults younger than age 50 years – is an emerging global epidemic, according to a recent review.

While the rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is a well-documented problem, the trend appears to extend far beyond CRC. The authors traced patterns of early-onset cancer diagnoses across 14 different cancer types, including breast, prostate, and thyroid, over the past 3 decades and found increases in many countries.

Among the 14 cancers explored, eight relate to the digestive system, which highlights the potential role diet and the oral and gut microbiome may play in cancer risk, the authors noted.

And many of the factors that appear to influence cancer risk – such as diet, exercise, sleep, and vaccination against HPV and other cancer-causing microorganisms – are modifiable.

“[Our] immediate goals should be to raise awareness of the early-onset cancer epidemic and reduce exposure to [these] risk factors,” authors Tomotaka Ugai, MD, PhD, and Shuji Ogino, MD, PhD, with Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, noted in a joint email.

The paper was published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the rise in cancer screenings has contributed to earlier detection of cancers, a genuine increase in the incidence of some early-onset cancers also appears to be happening.

In the current review, Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and colleagues reviewed the literature and mapped trends in the incidence of 14 cancer types among 20- to 49-year-old adults in 44 countries between 2002 and 2012.

The authors found that, since the 1990s, the incidence of early-onset cancers in the breast, colorectum, endometrium, esophagus, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head/neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid, has increased around the world. Looking at the United States, for instance, the average annual percent changes for kidney cancer was 3.6% in women and 4.1% in men and for multiple myeloma was 2% in women and 3% in men for 2002 to 2012.

This overall trend could reflect increased exposures to risk factors in early life and young adulthood, although “specific effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown,” the authors acknowledged.

Since the mid-20th century, substantial changes have occurred in diet, sleep, smoking, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and environmental exposures – all of which may influence the gut microbiome or interact with our genes to increase the incidence of early-onset cancers, the authors explained. For instance, obesity, smoking, and alcohol are all established risk factors for pancreatic cancer and have been linked with early-onset disease risk as well.

“Cancer is a multifactorial disease, and we are aware of the importance of genetics as a risk factor and screening for early detection, but this paper importantly brings to light the importance of correctable lifestyle habits that may slow the rise of early onset cancers,” oncologist Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the review, said in an interview.

Although modifiable factors such as diet and exercise may ease the burden of these cancers, such changes are often difficult to implement, Dr. Meyers added. In addition, understanding the impact that certain factors, such as alcohol, obesity, physical activity, and delayed reproduction play in cancer risk requires more research to tease out, but “there is enough reason at this point to address these risk factors for both personal and public health benefits,” Dr. Meyers said.

Support for this research was provided in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation. Dr. Ugai, Dr. Ogino, and Dr. Meyers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on Preprints with The Lancet as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Adults in China who consumed a “balanced,” moderate ratio (middle three quintiles) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 8.6 years, compared with those who consumed the lowest ratio (first quintile), after multivariable adjustment using prospectively collected data.
• The results also indicate that increasing animal cooking oil (such as lard, tallow, or butter) and vegetable cooking oil (such as peanut or soybean oil) consumption were each positively associated with a higher rate of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Those who consumed the highest ratio (fifth quintile) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a nonsignificant difference in their rate of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those in the first quintile.

Why this matters

• The findings suggest that consuming a diet with a “balanced” moderate intake of animal and vegetable oil might lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, which would reduce disease burden and health care expenditures.
• The results imply that using a single source of cooking oil, either animal or vegetable, contributes to the incidence of type 2 diabetes.
• This is the first large epidemiological study showing a relationship between the ratio of animal- and vegetable-derived fats in people’s diets and their risk for incident type 2 diabetes.

Study design

• The researchers used data collected prospectively starting in 2010-2012 from 7,274 adult residents of Guizhou province, China, with follow-up assessment in 2020 after a median of 8.6 years.
• At baseline, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and provided information on demographics, family medical history, and personal medical history, including whether they had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or were taking antihyperglycemic medications. The study did not include anyone with a history of diabetes.
• Data on intake of animal and vegetable cooking oil came from a dietary questionnaire.
• The authors calculated hazard ratios for development of type 2 diabetes after adjusting for multiple potential confounders.

Key results

• The study cohort averaged 44 years old, and 53% were women.
• During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 747 people developed type 2 diabetes.
• Compared with those who had the lowest intake of animal cooking oil (first quintile), those with the highest intake (fifth quintile) had a significant 28% increased relative rate for developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment for several potential confounders.
• Compared with those with the lowest intake of vegetable cooking oil, those with the highest intake had a significant 56% increased rate of developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment.
• Compared with adults with the lowest animal-to-vegetable cooking oil ratio (first quintile), those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles for this ratio had significantly lower adjusted relative rates of developing type 2 diabetes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.79, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. Those in the highest quintile (fifth quintile) did not have a significantly different risk, compared with the first quintile.
• The protective effect of a balanced ratio of animal-to-vegetable cooking oils was stronger in people who lived in rural districts and in those who had obesity.

Limitations

• The dietary information came from participants’ self-reports, which may have produced biased data.
• The study only included information about animal and vegetable cooking oil consumed at home.
• There may have been residual confounding from variables not included in the study.
• The time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may have been inaccurate because follow-up occurred only once. 
• The study may have underestimated the incidence of type 2 diabetes because of a lack of information about hemoglobin A1c levels at follow-up.

Disclosures

• The study did not receive commercial funding.
• The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint article “The consumption ratio of animal cooking oil to vegetable cooking oil and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study in Southwest China” written by researchers primarily from Zunyi Medical University, China, on Preprints with The Lancet. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on papers.ssrn.com.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on Preprints with The Lancet as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Adults in China who consumed a “balanced,” moderate ratio (middle three quintiles) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 8.6 years, compared with those who consumed the lowest ratio (first quintile), after multivariable adjustment using prospectively collected data.
• The results also indicate that increasing animal cooking oil (such as lard, tallow, or butter) and vegetable cooking oil (such as peanut or soybean oil) consumption were each positively associated with a higher rate of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Those who consumed the highest ratio (fifth quintile) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a nonsignificant difference in their rate of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those in the first quintile.

Why this matters

• The findings suggest that consuming a diet with a “balanced” moderate intake of animal and vegetable oil might lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, which would reduce disease burden and health care expenditures.
• The results imply that using a single source of cooking oil, either animal or vegetable, contributes to the incidence of type 2 diabetes.
• This is the first large epidemiological study showing a relationship between the ratio of animal- and vegetable-derived fats in people’s diets and their risk for incident type 2 diabetes.

Study design

• The researchers used data collected prospectively starting in 2010-2012 from 7,274 adult residents of Guizhou province, China, with follow-up assessment in 2020 after a median of 8.6 years.
• At baseline, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and provided information on demographics, family medical history, and personal medical history, including whether they had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or were taking antihyperglycemic medications. The study did not include anyone with a history of diabetes.
• Data on intake of animal and vegetable cooking oil came from a dietary questionnaire.
• The authors calculated hazard ratios for development of type 2 diabetes after adjusting for multiple potential confounders.

Key results

• The study cohort averaged 44 years old, and 53% were women.
• During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 747 people developed type 2 diabetes.
• Compared with those who had the lowest intake of animal cooking oil (first quintile), those with the highest intake (fifth quintile) had a significant 28% increased relative rate for developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment for several potential confounders.
• Compared with those with the lowest intake of vegetable cooking oil, those with the highest intake had a significant 56% increased rate of developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment.
• Compared with adults with the lowest animal-to-vegetable cooking oil ratio (first quintile), those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles for this ratio had significantly lower adjusted relative rates of developing type 2 diabetes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.79, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. Those in the highest quintile (fifth quintile) did not have a significantly different risk, compared with the first quintile.
• The protective effect of a balanced ratio of animal-to-vegetable cooking oils was stronger in people who lived in rural districts and in those who had obesity.

Limitations

• The dietary information came from participants’ self-reports, which may have produced biased data.
• The study only included information about animal and vegetable cooking oil consumed at home.
• There may have been residual confounding from variables not included in the study.
• The time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may have been inaccurate because follow-up occurred only once. 
• The study may have underestimated the incidence of type 2 diabetes because of a lack of information about hemoglobin A1c levels at follow-up.

Disclosures

• The study did not receive commercial funding.
• The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint article “The consumption ratio of animal cooking oil to vegetable cooking oil and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study in Southwest China” written by researchers primarily from Zunyi Medical University, China, on Preprints with The Lancet. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on papers.ssrn.com.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on Preprints with The Lancet as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Adults in China who consumed a “balanced,” moderate ratio (middle three quintiles) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a lower rate of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 8.6 years, compared with those who consumed the lowest ratio (first quintile), after multivariable adjustment using prospectively collected data.
• The results also indicate that increasing animal cooking oil (such as lard, tallow, or butter) and vegetable cooking oil (such as peanut or soybean oil) consumption were each positively associated with a higher rate of developing type 2 diabetes.
• Those who consumed the highest ratio (fifth quintile) of animal-to-vegetable cooking oil had a nonsignificant difference in their rate of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those in the first quintile.

Why this matters

• The findings suggest that consuming a diet with a “balanced” moderate intake of animal and vegetable oil might lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, which would reduce disease burden and health care expenditures.
• The results imply that using a single source of cooking oil, either animal or vegetable, contributes to the incidence of type 2 diabetes.
• This is the first large epidemiological study showing a relationship between the ratio of animal- and vegetable-derived fats in people’s diets and their risk for incident type 2 diabetes.

Study design

• The researchers used data collected prospectively starting in 2010-2012 from 7,274 adult residents of Guizhou province, China, with follow-up assessment in 2020 after a median of 8.6 years.
• At baseline, participants underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and provided information on demographics, family medical history, and personal medical history, including whether they had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes or were taking antihyperglycemic medications. The study did not include anyone with a history of diabetes.
• Data on intake of animal and vegetable cooking oil came from a dietary questionnaire.
• The authors calculated hazard ratios for development of type 2 diabetes after adjusting for multiple potential confounders.

Key results

• The study cohort averaged 44 years old, and 53% were women.
• During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 747 people developed type 2 diabetes.
• Compared with those who had the lowest intake of animal cooking oil (first quintile), those with the highest intake (fifth quintile) had a significant 28% increased relative rate for developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment for several potential confounders.
• Compared with those with the lowest intake of vegetable cooking oil, those with the highest intake had a significant 56% increased rate of developing type 2 diabetes after adjustment.
• Compared with adults with the lowest animal-to-vegetable cooking oil ratio (first quintile), those in the second, third, and fourth quintiles for this ratio had significantly lower adjusted relative rates of developing type 2 diabetes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.79, 0.65, and 0.68, respectively. Those in the highest quintile (fifth quintile) did not have a significantly different risk, compared with the first quintile.
• The protective effect of a balanced ratio of animal-to-vegetable cooking oils was stronger in people who lived in rural districts and in those who had obesity.

Limitations

• The dietary information came from participants’ self-reports, which may have produced biased data.
• The study only included information about animal and vegetable cooking oil consumed at home.
• There may have been residual confounding from variables not included in the study.
• The time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may have been inaccurate because follow-up occurred only once. 
• The study may have underestimated the incidence of type 2 diabetes because of a lack of information about hemoglobin A1c levels at follow-up.

Disclosures

• The study did not receive commercial funding.
• The authors reported no financial disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint article “The consumption ratio of animal cooking oil to vegetable cooking oil and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study in Southwest China” written by researchers primarily from Zunyi Medical University, China, on Preprints with The Lancet. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on papers.ssrn.com.

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

The Centers for Disease Control has changed its position on mandatory masking in health care settings, no longer recommending that it be universal.

It’s a “major departure” from the CDC’s previous recommendation of universal masking to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, The Hill says.

“Updates were made to reflect the high levels of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools,” the CDC’s new guidance says.

The agency now says that facilities in areas without high transmission can decide for themselves whether to require everyone – doctors, patients, and visitors – to wear masks.

Community transmission “is the metric currently recommended to guide select practices in healthcare settings to allow for earlier intervention, before there is strain on the health care system and to better protect the individuals seeking care in these settings,” the CDC said.

About 73% of the country is having “high” rates of transmission, The Hill said.

“Community transmission” is different from the “community level” metric that’s used for non–health care settings. 

Community transmission refers to measures of the presence and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the CDC said. “Community levels place an emphasis on measures of the impact of COVID-19 in terms of hospitalizations and health care system strain, while accounting for transmission in the community.”

Just 7% of counties are considered high risk, while nearly 62 percent are low.

The new guidance applies wherever health care is delivered, including nursing homes and home health, the CDC said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control has changed its position on mandatory masking in health care settings, no longer recommending that it be universal.

It’s a “major departure” from the CDC’s previous recommendation of universal masking to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, The Hill says.

“Updates were made to reflect the high levels of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools,” the CDC’s new guidance says.

The agency now says that facilities in areas without high transmission can decide for themselves whether to require everyone – doctors, patients, and visitors – to wear masks.

Community transmission “is the metric currently recommended to guide select practices in healthcare settings to allow for earlier intervention, before there is strain on the health care system and to better protect the individuals seeking care in these settings,” the CDC said.

About 73% of the country is having “high” rates of transmission, The Hill said.

“Community transmission” is different from the “community level” metric that’s used for non–health care settings. 

Community transmission refers to measures of the presence and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the CDC said. “Community levels place an emphasis on measures of the impact of COVID-19 in terms of hospitalizations and health care system strain, while accounting for transmission in the community.”

Just 7% of counties are considered high risk, while nearly 62 percent are low.

The new guidance applies wherever health care is delivered, including nursing homes and home health, the CDC said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control has changed its position on mandatory masking in health care settings, no longer recommending that it be universal.

It’s a “major departure” from the CDC’s previous recommendation of universal masking to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, The Hill says.

“Updates were made to reflect the high levels of vaccine-and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools,” the CDC’s new guidance says.

The agency now says that facilities in areas without high transmission can decide for themselves whether to require everyone – doctors, patients, and visitors – to wear masks.

Community transmission “is the metric currently recommended to guide select practices in healthcare settings to allow for earlier intervention, before there is strain on the health care system and to better protect the individuals seeking care in these settings,” the CDC said.

About 73% of the country is having “high” rates of transmission, The Hill said.

“Community transmission” is different from the “community level” metric that’s used for non–health care settings. 

Community transmission refers to measures of the presence and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the CDC said. “Community levels place an emphasis on measures of the impact of COVID-19 in terms of hospitalizations and health care system strain, while accounting for transmission in the community.”

Just 7% of counties are considered high risk, while nearly 62 percent are low.

The new guidance applies wherever health care is delivered, including nursing homes and home health, the CDC said.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

STOCKHOLM – Recent study results confirm that two agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class can significantly cut the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), a disease especially common in people with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both.

And findings from secondary analyses of the studies – including one reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes – show that these SGLT2 inhibitors work as well for cutting incident adverse events (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) in patients with HFpEF and diabetes as they do for people with normal blood glucose levels.

But delivering treatment with these proven agents, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), first requires diagnosis of HFpEF, a task that clinicians have historically fallen short in accomplishing.

When in 2021, results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial with empagliflozin and when in September 2022 results from the DELIVER trial with dapagliflozin established the efficacy of these two SGLT2 inhibitors as the first treatments proven to benefit patients with HFpEF, they also raised the stakes for clinicians to be much more diligent and systematic in evaluating people at high risk for developing HFpEF because of having type 2 diabetes or obesity, two of the most potent risk factors for this form of heart failure.
 

‘Vigilance ... needs to increase’

“Vigilance for HFpEF needs to increase because we can now help these patients,” declared Lars H. Lund, MD, PhD, speaking at the meeting. “Type 2 diabetes dramatically increases the incidence of HFpEF,” and the mechanisms by which it does this are “especially amenable to treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors,” said Dr. Lund, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.

HFpEF has a history of going undetected in people with type 2 diabetes, an ironic situation given its high incidence as well as the elevated rate of adverse cardiovascular events when heart failure occurs in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients who do not have diabetes.

The key, say experts, is for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for signs and symptoms of heart failure in people with type 2 diabetes and to regularly assess them, starting with just a few simple questions that probe for the presence of dyspnea, exertional fatigue, or both, an approach not widely employed up to now.

Clinicians who care for people with type 2 diabetes must become “alert to thinking about heart failure and alert to asking questions about signs and symptoms” that flag the presence of HFpEF, advised Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Soon, medical groups will issue guidelines for appropriate assessment for the presence of HFpEF in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Sattar predicted in an interview.
 

A need to probe

“You can’t simply ask patients with type 2 diabetes whether they have shortness of breath or exertional fatigue and stop there,” because often their first response will be no.

“Commonly, patients will initially say they have no dyspnea, but when you probe further, you find symptoms,” noted Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, codirector of Saint Luke’s Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

These people are often sedentary, so they frequently don’t experience shortness of breath at baseline, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. In some cases, they may limit their activity because of their exertional intolerance.

Once a person’s suggestive symptoms become known, the next step is to measure the serum level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a biomarker considered to be a generally reliable signal of existing heart failure when elevated.

Any value above 125 pg/mL is suggestive of prevalent heart failure and should lead to the next diagnostic step of echocardiography, Dr. Sattar said.

Elevated NT-proBNP has such good positive predictive value for identifying heart failure that it is tempting to use it broadly in people with type 2 diabetes. A 2022 consensus report from the American Diabetes Association says that “measurement of a natriuretic peptide [such as NT-proBNP] or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest HF [heart failure] stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic HF.”
 

Test costs require targeting

But because of the relatively high current price for an NT-proBNP test, the cost-benefit ratio for widespread annual testing of all people with type 2 diabetes would be poor, some experts caution.

“Screening everyone may not be the right answer. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide” have type 2 diabetes. “You first need to target evaluation to people with symptoms,” advised Dr. Kosiborod.

He also warned that a low NT-proBNP level does not always rule out HFpEF, especially among people with type 2 diabetes who also have overweight or obesity, because NT-proBNP levels can be “artificially low” in people with obesity.

Other potential aids to diagnosis are assessment scores that researchers have developed, such as the H2FPEF score, which relies on variables that include age, obesity, and the presence of atrial fibrillation and hypertension.

However, this score also requires an echocardiography examination, another test that would have a questionable cost-benefit ratio if performed widely for patients with type 2 diabetes without targeting, Dr. Kosiborod said.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors benefit HFpEF regardless of glucose levels

A prespecified analysis of the DELIVER results that divided the study cohort on the basis of their glycemic status proved the efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin for patients with HFpEF regardless of whether or not they had type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or were normoglycemic at entry into the study, Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, reported at the EASD meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treatment with dapagliflozin cut the incidence of the trial’s primary outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure by a significant 18% relative to placebo among all enrolled patients.

The new analysis reported by Dr. Inzucchi showed that treatment was associated with a 23% relative risk reduction among those with normoglycemia, a 13% reduction among those with prediabetes, and a 19% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes, with no signal of a significant difference among the three subgroups.

“There was no statistical interaction between categorical glycemic subgrouping and dapagliflozin’s treatment effect,” concluded Dr. Inzucchi, director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center, New Haven, Conn.

He also reported that, among the 6,259 people in the trial with HFpEF, 50% had diabetes, 31% had prediabetes, and a scant 19% had normoglycemia. The finding highlights once again the high prevalence of dysglycemia among people with HFpEF.

Previously, a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial yielded similar findings for empagliflozin that showed the agent’s efficacy for people with HFpEF across the range of glucose levels.

The DELIVER trial was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The EMPEROR-Preserved trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lund has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and to numerous other companies, and he is a stockholder in AnaCardio. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to and has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has been a consultant with numerous companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been a consultant to Eli Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to, given talks on behalf of, or served on trial committees for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and vTv Therapetics.

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

Adding venetoclax (Venclexta) to a gilteritinib (Xospata) regimen appeared to improve outcomes in refractory/relapsed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a new industry-funded phase 1b study reported.

“The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib is a highly active and tolerable oral combination regimen that potentially improves response frequency and depth over existing standards in a high-risk, mutation-defined group of patients with AML,” wrote the authors of the study, which appeared in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Outcomes in AML are poor. As the study notes, most patients relapse and face a median overall survival of 4-7 months even with standard chemotherapy. Gilteritinib, a selective oral FLT3 inhibitor, is Food and Drug Administration–approved for the 30% of relapsed/refractory patients with AML who have FLT3 mutations.

“The general sentiment is that, although some patients have great benefit from gilteritinib monotherapy, there is room to improve the quality, frequency, and duration of responses with combinations,” said hematologist Andrew Brunner, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, in an interview. He was not involved with the study research.

For the new open-label, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study, led by hematologist Naval Daver, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, researchers enrolled 61 patients (56 with FLT3 mutations) from 2018 to 2020. The median age was 63 years (range 21-85).

The subjects were assigned to get a recommended phase 2 dose of 400 mg venetoclax once daily and 120 mg gilteritinib once daily.

Over a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median remission time was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval, 3.4-6.6), and the patients with FLT3 mutations survived a median of 10 months.

“The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib was tolerable at standard doses of each drug, generated remarkably high response rates, and markedly reduced FLT3-internal tandem duplications mutation burden. … Early mortality was similar to gilteritinib monotherapy,” the authors wrote.

Eighty percent of patients experienced cytopenias, and “adverse events prompted venetoclax and gilteritinib dose interruptions in 51% and 48%, respectively.”

About 60% of patients who went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were alive at the end of follow-up, “suggesting that VenGilt [the combo treatment] could be an effective bridge to transplant in young/fit patients with relapsed FLT3mut AML,” the researchers wrote.

All patients withdrew from the study by November 2021 for several reasons such as death (n=42), adverse events (n=10), and disease progression (29); some had multiple reasons.

Dr. Brunner said the study is “an important step toward evaluating a new potential regimen.”

The remission duration, FLT3 molecular response, and median overall survival “seem quite encouraging for a severe disease like AML in relapse,” he said. However, he added that the drug combo “would need to be evaluated in a randomized and, ideally, placebo-controlled setting to know if this is a significant improvement.”

He also highlighted the high number of severe cyptopenias with associated complications such as death. “Whether this is acceptable depends on the patient and circumstances,” he said. “But it does suggest that this regimen would potentially be for more robust patients, particularly since the group that did best were those who went to transplant later.”

Pending more research, Dr. Brunner said, “I am not sure I would use [the combination treatment] over gilteritinib monotherapy, for instance. But there may be settings where no other options are available, and this could be considered, particularly if a transplant option is a next step.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Genentech, and Astellas. The study authors report multiple disclosures; some are employed by Astellas, AbbVie, and Genentech/Roche.

Dr. Bronner reports running clinical trials, advisory board service and/or consultation for Acceleron, Agios, Abbvie, BMS/Celgene, Keros Therapeutics, Novartis, Takeda, GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Gilead.

Adding venetoclax (Venclexta) to a gilteritinib (Xospata) regimen appeared to improve outcomes in refractory/relapsed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a new industry-funded phase 1b study reported.

“The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib is a highly active and tolerable oral combination regimen that potentially improves response frequency and depth over existing standards in a high-risk, mutation-defined group of patients with AML,” wrote the authors of the study, which appeared in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Outcomes in AML are poor. As the study notes, most patients relapse and face a median overall survival of 4-7 months even with standard chemotherapy. Gilteritinib, a selective oral FLT3 inhibitor, is Food and Drug Administration–approved for the 30% of relapsed/refractory patients with AML who have FLT3 mutations.

“The general sentiment is that, although some patients have great benefit from gilteritinib monotherapy, there is room to improve the quality, frequency, and duration of responses with combinations,” said hematologist Andrew Brunner, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, in an interview. He was not involved with the study research.

For the new open-label, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study, led by hematologist Naval Daver, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, researchers enrolled 61 patients (56 with FLT3 mutations) from 2018 to 2020. The median age was 63 years (range 21-85).

The subjects were assigned to get a recommended phase 2 dose of 400 mg venetoclax once daily and 120 mg gilteritinib once daily.

Over a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median remission time was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval, 3.4-6.6), and the patients with FLT3 mutations survived a median of 10 months.

“The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib was tolerable at standard doses of each drug, generated remarkably high response rates, and markedly reduced FLT3-internal tandem duplications mutation burden. … Early mortality was similar to gilteritinib monotherapy,” the authors wrote.

Eighty percent of patients experienced cytopenias, and “adverse events prompted venetoclax and gilteritinib dose interruptions in 51% and 48%, respectively.”

About 60% of patients who went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were alive at the end of follow-up, “suggesting that VenGilt [the combo treatment] could be an effective bridge to transplant in young/fit patients with relapsed FLT3mut AML,” the researchers wrote.

All patients withdrew from the study by November 2021 for several reasons such as death (n=42), adverse events (n=10), and disease progression (29); some had multiple reasons.

Dr. Brunner said the study is “an important step toward evaluating a new potential regimen.”

The remission duration, FLT3 molecular response, and median overall survival “seem quite encouraging for a severe disease like AML in relapse,” he said. However, he added that the drug combo “would need to be evaluated in a randomized and, ideally, placebo-controlled setting to know if this is a significant improvement.”

He also highlighted the high number of severe cyptopenias with associated complications such as death. “Whether this is acceptable depends on the patient and circumstances,” he said. “But it does suggest that this regimen would potentially be for more robust patients, particularly since the group that did best were those who went to transplant later.”

Pending more research, Dr. Brunner said, “I am not sure I would use [the combination treatment] over gilteritinib monotherapy, for instance. But there may be settings where no other options are available, and this could be considered, particularly if a transplant option is a next step.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Genentech, and Astellas. The study authors report multiple disclosures; some are employed by Astellas, AbbVie, and Genentech/Roche.

Dr. Bronner reports running clinical trials, advisory board service and/or consultation for Acceleron, Agios, Abbvie, BMS/Celgene, Keros Therapeutics, Novartis, Takeda, GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Gilead.

Adding venetoclax (Venclexta) to a gilteritinib (Xospata) regimen appeared to improve outcomes in refractory/relapsed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a new industry-funded phase 1b study reported.

“The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib is a highly active and tolerable oral combination regimen that potentially improves response frequency and depth over existing standards in a high-risk, mutation-defined group of patients with AML,” wrote the authors of the study, which appeared in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Outcomes in AML are poor. As the study notes, most patients relapse and face a median overall survival of 4-7 months even with standard chemotherapy. Gilteritinib, a selective oral FLT3 inhibitor, is Food and Drug Administration–approved for the 30% of relapsed/refractory patients with AML who have FLT3 mutations.

“The general sentiment is that, although some patients have great benefit from gilteritinib monotherapy, there is room to improve the quality, frequency, and duration of responses with combinations,” said hematologist Andrew Brunner, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, in an interview. He was not involved with the study research.

For the new open-label, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study, led by hematologist Naval Daver, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, researchers enrolled 61 patients (56 with FLT3 mutations) from 2018 to 2020. The median age was 63 years (range 21-85).

The subjects were assigned to get a recommended phase 2 dose of 400 mg venetoclax once daily and 120 mg gilteritinib once daily.

Over a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median remission time was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval, 3.4-6.6), and the patients with FLT3 mutations survived a median of 10 months.

“The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib was tolerable at standard doses of each drug, generated remarkably high response rates, and markedly reduced FLT3-internal tandem duplications mutation burden. … Early mortality was similar to gilteritinib monotherapy,” the authors wrote.

Eighty percent of patients experienced cytopenias, and “adverse events prompted venetoclax and gilteritinib dose interruptions in 51% and 48%, respectively.”

About 60% of patients who went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were alive at the end of follow-up, “suggesting that VenGilt [the combo treatment] could be an effective bridge to transplant in young/fit patients with relapsed FLT3mut AML,” the researchers wrote.

All patients withdrew from the study by November 2021 for several reasons such as death (n=42), adverse events (n=10), and disease progression (29); some had multiple reasons.

Dr. Brunner said the study is “an important step toward evaluating a new potential regimen.”

The remission duration, FLT3 molecular response, and median overall survival “seem quite encouraging for a severe disease like AML in relapse,” he said. However, he added that the drug combo “would need to be evaluated in a randomized and, ideally, placebo-controlled setting to know if this is a significant improvement.”

He also highlighted the high number of severe cyptopenias with associated complications such as death. “Whether this is acceptable depends on the patient and circumstances,” he said. “But it does suggest that this regimen would potentially be for more robust patients, particularly since the group that did best were those who went to transplant later.”

Pending more research, Dr. Brunner said, “I am not sure I would use [the combination treatment] over gilteritinib monotherapy, for instance. But there may be settings where no other options are available, and this could be considered, particularly if a transplant option is a next step.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Genentech, and Astellas. The study authors report multiple disclosures; some are employed by Astellas, AbbVie, and Genentech/Roche.

Dr. Bronner reports running clinical trials, advisory board service and/or consultation for Acceleron, Agios, Abbvie, BMS/Celgene, Keros Therapeutics, Novartis, Takeda, GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Gilead.

STOCKHOLM – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) significantly reduces A1c without increasing hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes, the first phase 3 data of such an insulin formulation suggest. The data are from one of six trials in the company’s ONWARDS program.

“Once-weekly insulin may redefine diabetes management,” enthused Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, who presented the findings at a session during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2022 Annual Meeting, which also included a summary of previously reported top-line data from other ONWARDS trials as well as phase 2 data for Lilly›s investigational once-weekly Basal Insulin Fc (BIF).

Phase 2 data for icodec were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and in 2021 in Diabetes Care, as reported by this news organization.

The capacity for reducing the number of basal insulin injections from at least 365 to just 52 per year means that once-weekly insulin “has the potential to facilitate insulin initiation and improve treatment adherence and persistence in diabetes,” noted Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, corporate vice president of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization that the new data from ONWARDS 2 of patients switching from daily to once-weekly basal insulin were reassuring with regard to hypoglycemia, at least for people with type 2 diabetes.

“For type 2, I think there’s enough data now to feel comfortable that it’s going to be good, especially for people who are on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists].”

However, for type 1 diabetes, the company reported top-line ONWARDS 6 data earlier this year, in which icodec was associated with significantly increased rates of hypoglycemia compared with daily degludec. “In type 1, even the basal needs are [often] changing. That kind of person would want to stay away from once-weekly insulin,” Dr. Alexander said.

And he noted, for any patient who adjusts their insulin dose frequently, “obviously, you’re not going to be able to do that with a once-weekly.”
 

Similar A1c reduction as daily basal without increased hypoglycemia

In ONWARDS 2, 526 adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to switch from their current once- or twice-daily basal insulin to either once-weekly icodec or once-daily insulin degludec (Tresiba) for 26 weeks. The study was open-label, with a treat-to-glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL design.

Participants had A1c levels of 7.0%-10.0% and were also taking stable doses of other noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Over 80% were taking metformin, a third were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, and about a quarter each were taking a GLP-1 agonist or DPP-4 inhibitor. Those medications were continued, but sulfonylureas were discontinued in the 22% taking those at baseline.

The basal insulin used at baseline was glargine U100 for 42%, degludec for 28%, and glargine U300 for 16%, “so, a very typical presentation of patients we see in our practices today,” Dr. Philis-Tsimikas noted.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped from 8.17% to 7.20% with icodec and from 8.10% to 7.42% with degludec. The estimated treatment difference of –0.22 percentage points met the margins for both noninferiority (P < .0001) and superiority (P = .0028). Those taking icodec were significantly more likely to achieve an A1c under 7% compared with degludec, at 40.3% versus 26.5% (P = .0019).

Continuous glucose monitoring parameters during weeks 22-26 showed time in glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 63.1% for icodec and 59.5% for degludec, which was not significantly different, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas reported.

Body weight increased by 1.4 kg (3 lb) with icodec but dropped slightly by 0.30 kg with degludec, which was significantly different (P < .001).

When asked about the body weight results, Dr. Alexander said: “It’s really hard to say. We know that insulin generally causes weight gain. A 1.4-kg weight gain over 6 months isn’t really surprising. Why there wasn’t with degludec, I don’t know.”

There was just one episode of severe hypoglycemia (requiring assistance) in the trial in the degludec group. Rates of combined severe or clinically significant hypoglycemic events (glucose < 54 mg/dL / < 3.0 mmol/L) per patient-year exposed were 0.73 for icodec versus 0.27 for degludec, which was not significantly different (P = .0782). Similar findings were seen for nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Significantly more patients achieved an A1c under 7% without significant hypoglycemia with icodec than degludec, at 36.7% versus 26.8% (P = .0223). Other adverse events were equivalent between the two groups, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas reported.

Scores on the diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire, which addresses convenience, flexibility, satisfaction, and willingness to recommend treatment to others, were significantly higher for icodec than degludec, at 4.22 versus 2.96 (P = .0036).

“For me, this is one of the most important outcomes,” she commented.  
 

Benefit in type 2 diabetes, potential concern in type 1 diabetes

Top-line results from ONWARDS 1, a phase 3a 78-week trial in 984 drug-naive people with type 2 diabetes and ONWARDS 6, a 52-week trial in 583 people with type 1 diabetes, were presented earlier this year at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions.

In ONWARDS 1, icodec achieved noninferiority to daily insulin glargine, reducing A1c by 1.55 versus 1.35 percentage points, with superior time in range and no significant differences in hypoglycemia rates.

However, in ONWARDS 6, while noninferiority in A1c lowering compared with daily degludec was achieved, with reductions of 0.47 versus 0.51 percentage points from a baseline A1c of 7.6%, there was a significantly greater rate of severe or clinically significant hypoglycemia with icodec, at 19.93 versus 10.37 events per patient-year with degludec.

Dr. Philis-Tsimikas has reported performing research and serving as an advisor on behalf of her employer for Abbott, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. All reimbursements go to her employer. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum.

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

STOCKHOLM – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) significantly reduces A1c without increasing hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes, the first phase 3 data of such an insulin formulation suggest. The data are from one of six trials in the company’s ONWARDS program.

“Once-weekly insulin may redefine diabetes management,” enthused Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, who presented the findings at a session during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2022 Annual Meeting, which also included a summary of previously reported top-line data from other ONWARDS trials as well as phase 2 data for Lilly›s investigational once-weekly Basal Insulin Fc (BIF).

Phase 2 data for icodec were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and in 2021 in Diabetes Care, as reported by this news organization.

The capacity for reducing the number of basal insulin injections from at least 365 to just 52 per year means that once-weekly insulin “has the potential to facilitate insulin initiation and improve treatment adherence and persistence in diabetes,” noted Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, corporate vice president of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization that the new data from ONWARDS 2 of patients switching from daily to once-weekly basal insulin were reassuring with regard to hypoglycemia, at least for people with type 2 diabetes.

“For type 2, I think there’s enough data now to feel comfortable that it’s going to be good, especially for people who are on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists].”

However, for type 1 diabetes, the company reported top-line ONWARDS 6 data earlier this year, in which icodec was associated with significantly increased rates of hypoglycemia compared with daily degludec. “In type 1, even the basal needs are [often] changing. That kind of person would want to stay away from once-weekly insulin,” Dr. Alexander said.

And he noted, for any patient who adjusts their insulin dose frequently, “obviously, you’re not going to be able to do that with a once-weekly.”
 

Similar A1c reduction as daily basal without increased hypoglycemia

In ONWARDS 2, 526 adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to switch from their current once- or twice-daily basal insulin to either once-weekly icodec or once-daily insulin degludec (Tresiba) for 26 weeks. The study was open-label, with a treat-to-glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL design.

Participants had A1c levels of 7.0%-10.0% and were also taking stable doses of other noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Over 80% were taking metformin, a third were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, and about a quarter each were taking a GLP-1 agonist or DPP-4 inhibitor. Those medications were continued, but sulfonylureas were discontinued in the 22% taking those at baseline.

The basal insulin used at baseline was glargine U100 for 42%, degludec for 28%, and glargine U300 for 16%, “so, a very typical presentation of patients we see in our practices today,” Dr. Philis-Tsimikas noted.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped from 8.17% to 7.20% with icodec and from 8.10% to 7.42% with degludec. The estimated treatment difference of –0.22 percentage points met the margins for both noninferiority (P < .0001) and superiority (P = .0028). Those taking icodec were significantly more likely to achieve an A1c under 7% compared with degludec, at 40.3% versus 26.5% (P = .0019).

Continuous glucose monitoring parameters during weeks 22-26 showed time in glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 63.1% for icodec and 59.5% for degludec, which was not significantly different, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas reported.

Body weight increased by 1.4 kg (3 lb) with icodec but dropped slightly by 0.30 kg with degludec, which was significantly different (P < .001).

When asked about the body weight results, Dr. Alexander said: “It’s really hard to say. We know that insulin generally causes weight gain. A 1.4-kg weight gain over 6 months isn’t really surprising. Why there wasn’t with degludec, I don’t know.”

There was just one episode of severe hypoglycemia (requiring assistance) in the trial in the degludec group. Rates of combined severe or clinically significant hypoglycemic events (glucose < 54 mg/dL / < 3.0 mmol/L) per patient-year exposed were 0.73 for icodec versus 0.27 for degludec, which was not significantly different (P = .0782). Similar findings were seen for nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Significantly more patients achieved an A1c under 7% without significant hypoglycemia with icodec than degludec, at 36.7% versus 26.8% (P = .0223). Other adverse events were equivalent between the two groups, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas reported.

Scores on the diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire, which addresses convenience, flexibility, satisfaction, and willingness to recommend treatment to others, were significantly higher for icodec than degludec, at 4.22 versus 2.96 (P = .0036).

“For me, this is one of the most important outcomes,” she commented.  
 

Benefit in type 2 diabetes, potential concern in type 1 diabetes

Top-line results from ONWARDS 1, a phase 3a 78-week trial in 984 drug-naive people with type 2 diabetes and ONWARDS 6, a 52-week trial in 583 people with type 1 diabetes, were presented earlier this year at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions.

In ONWARDS 1, icodec achieved noninferiority to daily insulin glargine, reducing A1c by 1.55 versus 1.35 percentage points, with superior time in range and no significant differences in hypoglycemia rates.

However, in ONWARDS 6, while noninferiority in A1c lowering compared with daily degludec was achieved, with reductions of 0.47 versus 0.51 percentage points from a baseline A1c of 7.6%, there was a significantly greater rate of severe or clinically significant hypoglycemia with icodec, at 19.93 versus 10.37 events per patient-year with degludec.

Dr. Philis-Tsimikas has reported performing research and serving as an advisor on behalf of her employer for Abbott, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. All reimbursements go to her employer. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum.

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

STOCKHOLM – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) significantly reduces A1c without increasing hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes, the first phase 3 data of such an insulin formulation suggest. The data are from one of six trials in the company’s ONWARDS program.

“Once-weekly insulin may redefine diabetes management,” enthused Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, who presented the findings at a session during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2022 Annual Meeting, which also included a summary of previously reported top-line data from other ONWARDS trials as well as phase 2 data for Lilly›s investigational once-weekly Basal Insulin Fc (BIF).

Phase 2 data for icodec were published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and in 2021 in Diabetes Care, as reported by this news organization.

The capacity for reducing the number of basal insulin injections from at least 365 to just 52 per year means that once-weekly insulin “has the potential to facilitate insulin initiation and improve treatment adherence and persistence in diabetes,” noted Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, corporate vice president of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization that the new data from ONWARDS 2 of patients switching from daily to once-weekly basal insulin were reassuring with regard to hypoglycemia, at least for people with type 2 diabetes.

“For type 2, I think there’s enough data now to feel comfortable that it’s going to be good, especially for people who are on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists].”

However, for type 1 diabetes, the company reported top-line ONWARDS 6 data earlier this year, in which icodec was associated with significantly increased rates of hypoglycemia compared with daily degludec. “In type 1, even the basal needs are [often] changing. That kind of person would want to stay away from once-weekly insulin,” Dr. Alexander said.

And he noted, for any patient who adjusts their insulin dose frequently, “obviously, you’re not going to be able to do that with a once-weekly.”
 

Similar A1c reduction as daily basal without increased hypoglycemia

In ONWARDS 2, 526 adults with type 2 diabetes were randomized to switch from their current once- or twice-daily basal insulin to either once-weekly icodec or once-daily insulin degludec (Tresiba) for 26 weeks. The study was open-label, with a treat-to-glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL design.

Participants had A1c levels of 7.0%-10.0% and were also taking stable doses of other noninsulin glucose-lowering medications. Over 80% were taking metformin, a third were taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, and about a quarter each were taking a GLP-1 agonist or DPP-4 inhibitor. Those medications were continued, but sulfonylureas were discontinued in the 22% taking those at baseline.

The basal insulin used at baseline was glargine U100 for 42%, degludec for 28%, and glargine U300 for 16%, “so, a very typical presentation of patients we see in our practices today,” Dr. Philis-Tsimikas noted.

The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped from 8.17% to 7.20% with icodec and from 8.10% to 7.42% with degludec. The estimated treatment difference of –0.22 percentage points met the margins for both noninferiority (P < .0001) and superiority (P = .0028). Those taking icodec were significantly more likely to achieve an A1c under 7% compared with degludec, at 40.3% versus 26.5% (P = .0019).

Continuous glucose monitoring parameters during weeks 22-26 showed time in glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) was 63.1% for icodec and 59.5% for degludec, which was not significantly different, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas reported.

Body weight increased by 1.4 kg (3 lb) with icodec but dropped slightly by 0.30 kg with degludec, which was significantly different (P < .001).

When asked about the body weight results, Dr. Alexander said: “It’s really hard to say. We know that insulin generally causes weight gain. A 1.4-kg weight gain over 6 months isn’t really surprising. Why there wasn’t with degludec, I don’t know.”

There was just one episode of severe hypoglycemia (requiring assistance) in the trial in the degludec group. Rates of combined severe or clinically significant hypoglycemic events (glucose < 54 mg/dL / < 3.0 mmol/L) per patient-year exposed were 0.73 for icodec versus 0.27 for degludec, which was not significantly different (P = .0782). Similar findings were seen for nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Significantly more patients achieved an A1c under 7% without significant hypoglycemia with icodec than degludec, at 36.7% versus 26.8% (P = .0223). Other adverse events were equivalent between the two groups, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas reported.

Scores on the diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire, which addresses convenience, flexibility, satisfaction, and willingness to recommend treatment to others, were significantly higher for icodec than degludec, at 4.22 versus 2.96 (P = .0036).

“For me, this is one of the most important outcomes,” she commented.  
 

Benefit in type 2 diabetes, potential concern in type 1 diabetes

Top-line results from ONWARDS 1, a phase 3a 78-week trial in 984 drug-naive people with type 2 diabetes and ONWARDS 6, a 52-week trial in 583 people with type 1 diabetes, were presented earlier this year at the American Diabetes Association 81st Scientific Sessions.

In ONWARDS 1, icodec achieved noninferiority to daily insulin glargine, reducing A1c by 1.55 versus 1.35 percentage points, with superior time in range and no significant differences in hypoglycemia rates.

However, in ONWARDS 6, while noninferiority in A1c lowering compared with daily degludec was achieved, with reductions of 0.47 versus 0.51 percentage points from a baseline A1c of 7.6%, there was a significantly greater rate of severe or clinically significant hypoglycemia with icodec, at 19.93 versus 10.37 events per patient-year with degludec.

Dr. Philis-Tsimikas has reported performing research and serving as an advisor on behalf of her employer for Abbott, Bayer, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. All reimbursements go to her employer. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum.

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

While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

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

While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

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

While efficacy and quality of life outcomes are similar across commonly used treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, the costs of these agents vary widely, a recent analysis reveals.

Notably, the authors found that using standard chemotherapy agents in specific sequences can help reduce overall costs and improve the value of care.

Given “razor thin” differences in outcomes, cost should become a major consideration, the researchers concluded.

“As a society, we urgently need more strategies to reduce cancer drug costs without compromising outcomes, and our analysis provides quantifiable evidence to help providers choose lower priced, but equally effective sequences of drugs,” first author Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in a press release.

Although the drugs Dr. Wheeler and colleagues studied are reimbursed in the metastatic breast cancer setting, “the optimal sequencing of them has been unclear, which has led to considerable variation in physician preference and practice,” Dr. Wheeler said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic options from the first- to third-line setting for this patient population.

The researchers used three dynamic microsimulation computer models to predict how hypothetical sets of 10,000 patients with specific types of metastatic breast cancer would respond to various therapy types and sequences. The cohorts were grouped according to prior chemotherapy exposure: cohort 1 had no taxane or anthracycline exposure, cohort 2 had taxane and anthracycline exposure, and cohort 3 had taxane exposure but was anthracycline naive.

On the basis of feedback from oncologists, the investigators focused on different agents in the three cohorts: paclitaxel, capecitabine, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for cohort 1; eribulin, capecitabine, or carboplatin for cohort 2; and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, capecitabine, or eribulin for cohort 3.

Overall, the models showed “nearly indistinguishable differences” in quality of life. In fact, the “razor-thin incremental differences in quality-adjusted survival” across the treatment sequences often amounted to differences of only a few days or weeks, the authors noted, adding that, even in the most extreme of cases, 3 weeks separated the best and worst options for quality-adjusted life-years.

But the models did show considerable differences in costs.

The authors found that, for cohort 1, treatment with paclitaxel followed by capecitabine and then pegylated liposomal doxorubicin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and the lowest costs – $686 per month versus the highest cost option of $1,765.

For cohort 2, treatment with carboplatin followed by capecitabine and then eribulin corresponded to the highest expected quality-adjusted life-year gain and lowest costs.

For cohort 3, treatment sequences beginning with capecitabine or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin followed by eribulin was most cost effective.

Notably, the authors found that eribulin – the most expensive treatment with a high expected adverse event burden – performed particularly poorly in the two cohorts in which it was evaluated, “suggesting it should be used last in a sequence, on the basis of cost-effectiveness alone.”

In other words, “more spending on cancer care does not necessarily confer greater health benefits,” said Dr. Wheeler, also a professor of health policy.

“I hope our study will help expand the framework that we use to make these decisions from one where we just think about the biologic action of the drug to one where we also consider the bigger picture of what the treatment experience is like for the patient, including their financial burden, investment of time, and side effects,” study coauthor Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, MD, section chief of breast oncology at UNC, said in the press release.

The results demonstrate that therapeutic decisions in the endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic setting “may prioritize costs without affecting clinical outcomes” and highlight the direct impact that a “high-quality, transparent, and accessible economic analysis” can have on patient care, Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Following the treatment sequences outlined in this study would “reduce patient financial burden and save our health system hundreds of millions of dollars annually,” the editorialists wrote.

As for next steps, Dr. Wheeler and colleagues have developed a financial navigation program to help patients manage their out-of-pocket cancer care costs and are currently scaling up the intervention in nine rural and nonrural oncology practices across North Carolina.

The study was supported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention through the Prevention Research Centers Program. Dr. Wheeler has received research funding and payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Pfizer. Dr. Ramsey has had consulting or advisory roles and has received research funding and/or payment for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, GRAIL, Seattle Genetics, Biovica, and/or Flatiron Health. Because of their editorial roles at the journal, the Journal of Clinical Oncology recused Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Ramsey from having any role in the peer review of their respective manuscripts.

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