Clinical Topics & News

It all began with the question, “Has your butt been getting enough attention?”

Though that may seem unorthodox, it led researchers to discovering a treatment that may help prevent anal cancer in people with HIV/AIDS. It’s still featured on their study’s website, with this further explanation: “You get your viral load checked, your T-cell count checked, but what about your anus? Did you know that half of HIV+ men have cell changes in their anus caused by HPV?”

The Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study, led by Joel Palefsky, MD, was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Palefsky, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco, and his team set out to determine whether a treatment that prevents cervical cancer in people with human papillomavirus (HPV) would benefit people with HIV/AIDS. The new treatment reduced the likelihood of anal cancer by more than 50%.

The team worked over 7 years, during which time they tested 4,459 men, women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals at 25 sites across the United States. The participants were sorted into two groups: Some received treatment for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), and some did not but were monitored for signs of disease. These included individuals over 35 who were living with HIV/AIDS and who were found to have patches of abnormal cells in their rectal lining.

HSILs are the cells gynecologists look for in performing a pap smear. They are precancerous cells commonly found in the cervix of persons with HPV. Finding HSILs during a gynecologic examination alerts clinicians to potential problems.

HSILs can also be found in the anal tract of men and women with HIV. Dr. Palefsky therefore hypothesized that, as with HPV and cervical cancer, these anal HSILs may be a precursor of anal cancer.

The scientists decided to treat these cells the same way they would treat them if found in the cervix and to see whether that reduced the risk of cancer. Doctors used lidocaine to numb the area, then removed the HSILs with an electric probe. The team then assessed whether the treatment prevented people from getting cancer.

It turns out that in many cases, it did. The study concluded after 30 of the participants developed anal cancer. Of those, 21 patients had not received HSIL treatment, compared with nine who did receive the treatment. The treatment resulted in a 57% reduction in the rate of anal cancer among patients who received treatment for their HSILs.

These results are encouraging, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, director of outcomes research in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NYU Langone Health. Dr. Shaukat was not involved with the study. She believes it’s going to cause ripples across the field.

“The study is likely to change guidelines in favor of active and early treatment for HSIL and away from watchful waiting in individuals living with HIV to reduce the risk of developing anal squamous cell carcinoma, akin to removing polyps during colonoscopy to progression to and incidence of colorectal cancer,” she said in an email interview.

Treatments for this group of patients are more important now than ever. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the number of people with HIV has increased, Dr. Palefsky detailed in a press conference announcing the ANCHOR results. That’s partially because of new transmissions and partially owing to the fact that new treatments make it possible for people with HIV to live long, healthy lives. So as more people with HIV move into their sunset years, there are more people at risk for developing cancer, which is a disease associated with aging. Anal cancer sits at the intersection of risk for aging people who have HIV.

Any defense we have against the risk of cancer in this growing demographic is a good thing, says Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also not involved in the study. Although it’s not ready to be applied in doctors’ offices now, it could be a tool in the future. “Anything we can do to try and decrease the chance of precancerous lesions progressing to a real invasive cancer is of great importance. This kind of prevention work is critical to helping minimize the burden of cancer on our communities,” Dr. Sanoff said in an interview.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and was conducted through the NCI-supported AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Sanoff report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It all began with the question, “Has your butt been getting enough attention?”

Though that may seem unorthodox, it led researchers to discovering a treatment that may help prevent anal cancer in people with HIV/AIDS. It’s still featured on their study’s website, with this further explanation: “You get your viral load checked, your T-cell count checked, but what about your anus? Did you know that half of HIV+ men have cell changes in their anus caused by HPV?”

The Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study, led by Joel Palefsky, MD, was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Palefsky, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco, and his team set out to determine whether a treatment that prevents cervical cancer in people with human papillomavirus (HPV) would benefit people with HIV/AIDS. The new treatment reduced the likelihood of anal cancer by more than 50%.

The team worked over 7 years, during which time they tested 4,459 men, women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals at 25 sites across the United States. The participants were sorted into two groups: Some received treatment for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), and some did not but were monitored for signs of disease. These included individuals over 35 who were living with HIV/AIDS and who were found to have patches of abnormal cells in their rectal lining.

HSILs are the cells gynecologists look for in performing a pap smear. They are precancerous cells commonly found in the cervix of persons with HPV. Finding HSILs during a gynecologic examination alerts clinicians to potential problems.

HSILs can also be found in the anal tract of men and women with HIV. Dr. Palefsky therefore hypothesized that, as with HPV and cervical cancer, these anal HSILs may be a precursor of anal cancer.

The scientists decided to treat these cells the same way they would treat them if found in the cervix and to see whether that reduced the risk of cancer. Doctors used lidocaine to numb the area, then removed the HSILs with an electric probe. The team then assessed whether the treatment prevented people from getting cancer.

It turns out that in many cases, it did. The study concluded after 30 of the participants developed anal cancer. Of those, 21 patients had not received HSIL treatment, compared with nine who did receive the treatment. The treatment resulted in a 57% reduction in the rate of anal cancer among patients who received treatment for their HSILs.

These results are encouraging, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, director of outcomes research in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NYU Langone Health. Dr. Shaukat was not involved with the study. She believes it’s going to cause ripples across the field.

“The study is likely to change guidelines in favor of active and early treatment for HSIL and away from watchful waiting in individuals living with HIV to reduce the risk of developing anal squamous cell carcinoma, akin to removing polyps during colonoscopy to progression to and incidence of colorectal cancer,” she said in an email interview.

Treatments for this group of patients are more important now than ever. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the number of people with HIV has increased, Dr. Palefsky detailed in a press conference announcing the ANCHOR results. That’s partially because of new transmissions and partially owing to the fact that new treatments make it possible for people with HIV to live long, healthy lives. So as more people with HIV move into their sunset years, there are more people at risk for developing cancer, which is a disease associated with aging. Anal cancer sits at the intersection of risk for aging people who have HIV.

Any defense we have against the risk of cancer in this growing demographic is a good thing, says Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also not involved in the study. Although it’s not ready to be applied in doctors’ offices now, it could be a tool in the future. “Anything we can do to try and decrease the chance of precancerous lesions progressing to a real invasive cancer is of great importance. This kind of prevention work is critical to helping minimize the burden of cancer on our communities,” Dr. Sanoff said in an interview.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and was conducted through the NCI-supported AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Sanoff report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It all began with the question, “Has your butt been getting enough attention?”

Though that may seem unorthodox, it led researchers to discovering a treatment that may help prevent anal cancer in people with HIV/AIDS. It’s still featured on their study’s website, with this further explanation: “You get your viral load checked, your T-cell count checked, but what about your anus? Did you know that half of HIV+ men have cell changes in their anus caused by HPV?”

The Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study, led by Joel Palefsky, MD, was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Palefsky, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco, and his team set out to determine whether a treatment that prevents cervical cancer in people with human papillomavirus (HPV) would benefit people with HIV/AIDS. The new treatment reduced the likelihood of anal cancer by more than 50%.

The team worked over 7 years, during which time they tested 4,459 men, women, transgender, and nonbinary individuals at 25 sites across the United States. The participants were sorted into two groups: Some received treatment for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), and some did not but were monitored for signs of disease. These included individuals over 35 who were living with HIV/AIDS and who were found to have patches of abnormal cells in their rectal lining.

HSILs are the cells gynecologists look for in performing a pap smear. They are precancerous cells commonly found in the cervix of persons with HPV. Finding HSILs during a gynecologic examination alerts clinicians to potential problems.

HSILs can also be found in the anal tract of men and women with HIV. Dr. Palefsky therefore hypothesized that, as with HPV and cervical cancer, these anal HSILs may be a precursor of anal cancer.

The scientists decided to treat these cells the same way they would treat them if found in the cervix and to see whether that reduced the risk of cancer. Doctors used lidocaine to numb the area, then removed the HSILs with an electric probe. The team then assessed whether the treatment prevented people from getting cancer.

It turns out that in many cases, it did. The study concluded after 30 of the participants developed anal cancer. Of those, 21 patients had not received HSIL treatment, compared with nine who did receive the treatment. The treatment resulted in a 57% reduction in the rate of anal cancer among patients who received treatment for their HSILs.

These results are encouraging, said Aasma Shaukat, MD, director of outcomes research in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NYU Langone Health. Dr. Shaukat was not involved with the study. She believes it’s going to cause ripples across the field.

“The study is likely to change guidelines in favor of active and early treatment for HSIL and away from watchful waiting in individuals living with HIV to reduce the risk of developing anal squamous cell carcinoma, akin to removing polyps during colonoscopy to progression to and incidence of colorectal cancer,” she said in an email interview.

Treatments for this group of patients are more important now than ever. Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the number of people with HIV has increased, Dr. Palefsky detailed in a press conference announcing the ANCHOR results. That’s partially because of new transmissions and partially owing to the fact that new treatments make it possible for people with HIV to live long, healthy lives. So as more people with HIV move into their sunset years, there are more people at risk for developing cancer, which is a disease associated with aging. Anal cancer sits at the intersection of risk for aging people who have HIV.

Any defense we have against the risk of cancer in this growing demographic is a good thing, says Hanna K. Sanoff, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was also not involved in the study. Although it’s not ready to be applied in doctors’ offices now, it could be a tool in the future. “Anything we can do to try and decrease the chance of precancerous lesions progressing to a real invasive cancer is of great importance. This kind of prevention work is critical to helping minimize the burden of cancer on our communities,” Dr. Sanoff said in an interview.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and was conducted through the NCI-supported AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Dr. Shaukat and Dr. Sanoff report no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

CHICAGO – Progress in breast cancer treatment over the past 2 decades has reduced expected mortality from both early-stage and metastatic disease, according to a new model that looked at 10-year distant recurrence-free survival and survival time after metastatic diagnosis, among other factors.

“There has been an accelerating influx of new treatments for breast cancer starting around 1990. We wished to ask whether and to what extent decades of metastatic treatment advances may have affected population level breast cancer mortality,” said Jennifer Lee Caswell-Jin, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Our models find that metastatic treatments improved population-level survival in all breast cancer subtypes since 2000 with substantial variability by subtype," said Dr. Caswell-Jin, who is a medical oncologist with Stanford (Calif.) Medicine specializing in breast cancer.

The study is based on an analysis of four models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The models simulated breast cancer mortality between 2000 and 2019 factoring in the use of mammography, efficacy and dissemination of estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2-specific treatments of early-stage (stages I-III) and metastatic (stage IV or distant recurrence) disease, but also non–cancer-related mortality. The models compared overall and ER/HER2-specific breast cancer mortality rates during this period with estimated rates with no screening or treatment, and then attributed mortality reductions to screening, early-stage, or metastatic treatment.

The results were compared with three clinical trials that tested therapies in different subtypes of metastatic disease. Dr. Caswell-Jin and colleagues adjusted the analysis to reflect expected differences between clinical trial populations and the broader population by sampling simulated patients who resembled the trial population.

The investigators found that, at 71%, the biggest drop in mortality rates were for women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, followed by 61% for women with ER-/HER2+ breast cancer and 59% for women with ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Triple-negative breast cancer – one of the most challenging breast cancers to treat – only saw a drop of 40% during this period. About 19% of the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality were caused by treatments after metastasis.

The median survival after a diagnosis of ER+/HER2– metastatic recurrence increased from 2 years in 2000 to 3.5 years in 2019. In triple-negative breast cancer, the increase was more modest, from 1.2 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2019. After a diagnosis of metastatic recurrence of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, median survival increased from 2.3 years in 2000 to 4.8 years in 2019, and for ER–/HER2+ breast cancer, from 2.2 years in 2000 to 3.9 years in 2019.

“How much metastatic treatments contributed to the overall mortality reduction varied over time depending on what therapies were entering the metastatic setting at that time and what therapies were transitioning from the metastatic to early-stage setting,” Dr. Caswell-Jin said.

The study did not include sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib for HER2-positive disease, which were approved after 2020. “The numbers that we cite will be better today for triple-negative breast cancer because of those two drugs. And will be even better for HER2-positive breast cancer because of those two drugs,” she said.

During the Q&A portion of the presentation, Daniel Hayes, MD, the Stuart B. Padnos Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, asked about the potential of CISNET as an in-practice diagnostic tool.

“We’ve traditionally told patients who have metastatic disease that they will not be cured. I told two patients that on Tuesday. Can CISNET modeling let us begin to see if there is indeed now, with the improved therapies we have, a group of patients who do appear to be cured, or is that not possible?” he asked.

Perhaps, Dr. Caswell-Jin said, in a very small population of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that did in fact occur, but to a very small degree.

CHICAGO – Progress in breast cancer treatment over the past 2 decades has reduced expected mortality from both early-stage and metastatic disease, according to a new model that looked at 10-year distant recurrence-free survival and survival time after metastatic diagnosis, among other factors.

“There has been an accelerating influx of new treatments for breast cancer starting around 1990. We wished to ask whether and to what extent decades of metastatic treatment advances may have affected population level breast cancer mortality,” said Jennifer Lee Caswell-Jin, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Our models find that metastatic treatments improved population-level survival in all breast cancer subtypes since 2000 with substantial variability by subtype," said Dr. Caswell-Jin, who is a medical oncologist with Stanford (Calif.) Medicine specializing in breast cancer.

The study is based on an analysis of four models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The models simulated breast cancer mortality between 2000 and 2019 factoring in the use of mammography, efficacy and dissemination of estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2-specific treatments of early-stage (stages I-III) and metastatic (stage IV or distant recurrence) disease, but also non–cancer-related mortality. The models compared overall and ER/HER2-specific breast cancer mortality rates during this period with estimated rates with no screening or treatment, and then attributed mortality reductions to screening, early-stage, or metastatic treatment.

The results were compared with three clinical trials that tested therapies in different subtypes of metastatic disease. Dr. Caswell-Jin and colleagues adjusted the analysis to reflect expected differences between clinical trial populations and the broader population by sampling simulated patients who resembled the trial population.

The investigators found that, at 71%, the biggest drop in mortality rates were for women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, followed by 61% for women with ER-/HER2+ breast cancer and 59% for women with ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Triple-negative breast cancer – one of the most challenging breast cancers to treat – only saw a drop of 40% during this period. About 19% of the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality were caused by treatments after metastasis.

The median survival after a diagnosis of ER+/HER2– metastatic recurrence increased from 2 years in 2000 to 3.5 years in 2019. In triple-negative breast cancer, the increase was more modest, from 1.2 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2019. After a diagnosis of metastatic recurrence of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, median survival increased from 2.3 years in 2000 to 4.8 years in 2019, and for ER–/HER2+ breast cancer, from 2.2 years in 2000 to 3.9 years in 2019.

“How much metastatic treatments contributed to the overall mortality reduction varied over time depending on what therapies were entering the metastatic setting at that time and what therapies were transitioning from the metastatic to early-stage setting,” Dr. Caswell-Jin said.

The study did not include sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib for HER2-positive disease, which were approved after 2020. “The numbers that we cite will be better today for triple-negative breast cancer because of those two drugs. And will be even better for HER2-positive breast cancer because of those two drugs,” she said.

During the Q&A portion of the presentation, Daniel Hayes, MD, the Stuart B. Padnos Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, asked about the potential of CISNET as an in-practice diagnostic tool.

“We’ve traditionally told patients who have metastatic disease that they will not be cured. I told two patients that on Tuesday. Can CISNET modeling let us begin to see if there is indeed now, with the improved therapies we have, a group of patients who do appear to be cured, or is that not possible?” he asked.

Perhaps, Dr. Caswell-Jin said, in a very small population of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that did in fact occur, but to a very small degree.

CHICAGO – Progress in breast cancer treatment over the past 2 decades has reduced expected mortality from both early-stage and metastatic disease, according to a new model that looked at 10-year distant recurrence-free survival and survival time after metastatic diagnosis, among other factors.

“There has been an accelerating influx of new treatments for breast cancer starting around 1990. We wished to ask whether and to what extent decades of metastatic treatment advances may have affected population level breast cancer mortality,” said Jennifer Lee Caswell-Jin, MD, during a presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“Our models find that metastatic treatments improved population-level survival in all breast cancer subtypes since 2000 with substantial variability by subtype," said Dr. Caswell-Jin, who is a medical oncologist with Stanford (Calif.) Medicine specializing in breast cancer.

The study is based on an analysis of four models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). The models simulated breast cancer mortality between 2000 and 2019 factoring in the use of mammography, efficacy and dissemination of estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2-specific treatments of early-stage (stages I-III) and metastatic (stage IV or distant recurrence) disease, but also non–cancer-related mortality. The models compared overall and ER/HER2-specific breast cancer mortality rates during this period with estimated rates with no screening or treatment, and then attributed mortality reductions to screening, early-stage, or metastatic treatment.

The results were compared with three clinical trials that tested therapies in different subtypes of metastatic disease. Dr. Caswell-Jin and colleagues adjusted the analysis to reflect expected differences between clinical trial populations and the broader population by sampling simulated patients who resembled the trial population.

The investigators found that, at 71%, the biggest drop in mortality rates were for women with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, followed by 61% for women with ER-/HER2+ breast cancer and 59% for women with ER+/HER2– breast cancer. Triple-negative breast cancer – one of the most challenging breast cancers to treat – only saw a drop of 40% during this period. About 19% of the overall reduction in breast cancer mortality were caused by treatments after metastasis.

The median survival after a diagnosis of ER+/HER2– metastatic recurrence increased from 2 years in 2000 to 3.5 years in 2019. In triple-negative breast cancer, the increase was more modest, from 1.2 years in 2000 to 1.8 years in 2019. After a diagnosis of metastatic recurrence of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer, median survival increased from 2.3 years in 2000 to 4.8 years in 2019, and for ER–/HER2+ breast cancer, from 2.2 years in 2000 to 3.9 years in 2019.

“How much metastatic treatments contributed to the overall mortality reduction varied over time depending on what therapies were entering the metastatic setting at that time and what therapies were transitioning from the metastatic to early-stage setting,” Dr. Caswell-Jin said.

The study did not include sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, or trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib for HER2-positive disease, which were approved after 2020. “The numbers that we cite will be better today for triple-negative breast cancer because of those two drugs. And will be even better for HER2-positive breast cancer because of those two drugs,” she said.

During the Q&A portion of the presentation, Daniel Hayes, MD, the Stuart B. Padnos Professor of Breast Cancer Research at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, asked about the potential of CISNET as an in-practice diagnostic tool.

“We’ve traditionally told patients who have metastatic disease that they will not be cured. I told two patients that on Tuesday. Can CISNET modeling let us begin to see if there is indeed now, with the improved therapies we have, a group of patients who do appear to be cured, or is that not possible?” he asked.

Perhaps, Dr. Caswell-Jin said, in a very small population of older patients with HER2-positive breast cancer that did in fact occur, but to a very small degree.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The investigational drug momelotinib has shown benefits in myelofibrosis in a new phase 3 trial, which could now lead to a Food and Drug Administration approval.

This drug had previously shown mixed results in a phase 3 trial funded by Gilead, which stopped development of the product; it was acquired by Sierra Oncology, which conducted the latest positive phase 3 trial and now plans to use it to apply for FDA approval.

Momelotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, significantly outperformed danazol on symptoms, spleen size, and anemia in adults with anemic myelofibrosis in the randomized trial of 195 patients from 21 countries presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current state for the treatment of myelofibrosis relies on JAK2,” said Ruben Mesa, MD, of the Mays Cancer Center at the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center.

“Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor.” However, in the early days of studying momelotinib,“it became clear that there was also potentially an improvement in anemia,” which may be related to the additional inhibition of ACVR1, he explained.

Data suggest that the ability to curb anemia in anemic myelofibrosis patients prolongs their lives for up to 8 years, Dr. Mesa added.

Previous studies, notably the phase 3 SIMPLIFY study, showed that momelotinib was associated with comparable effects on spleen volume, transfusion, and total symptom scores from baseline that were similar to ruxolitinib.

In the current study, known as MOMENTUM, a daily dose of momelotinib was compared to danazol for treatment of symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients who had previously received standard JAK-inhibitor therapy.

In the study, the researchers randomized 130 patients to momelotinib and 65 to danazol. After 24 weeks, those in the danazol group were allowed to cross over to momelotinib. The primary endpoint of the study was total symptom score (TSS) response after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included transfusion independence and splenic response at 24 weeks. The median age of the patients in the momelotinib group was 71 years, 60.8% were male, and 82% were white. The baseline demographics were not significantly different in the danazol group.

Overall, 24.6% of momelotinib patients responded with improved total symptom scores at 24 weeks vs. 9.2% of the danazol group. Spleen response also was significantly higher in the momelotinib group; 40% of patients showed a 25% reduction and 23% showed a 35% reduction, compared with 6.2% and 3.1%, respectively, of patients in the danazol group. Transfusion independence at week 24 also was higher for momelotinib patients, compared with danazol patients (31% vs. 20%, respectively, P = 0064).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 53.8% of momelotinib patients and 64.6% of danazol patients, and serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 40.0%, respectively. Nearly all patients had anemia, but only 27.7% and 26.2% of the momelotinib and danazol groups, respectively, had thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher. The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and increased blood creatinine. A total of 27.7% of the patients in the momelotinib group discontinued treatment; 16 of whom did so because of an adverse event.

Also, at 24 weeks, patients in the momelotinib group showed a trend towards increased overall survival, compared with danazol (HR, 0.506, P = 0.719).

With momelotinib, there is a consistent thrombocytopenic profile across subgroups, the data on which were presented separately at ASCO (poster 7061), Dr. Mesa added.

“We feel that these findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in MF patients, especially those with anemia,” he concluded.
 

Cytopenia data are exciting

The key finding in the current study is that “momelotinib leads to important endpoints including significant improvement in symptoms and spleen reduction,” said Dr. Gabriela Hobbs of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who served as the discussant for the study.

“I think a novel finding of momelotinib that is definitely exciting from the treatment perspective is that momelotinib can also lead to improvement in cytopenias,” she said. “We often have to decide between treating the symptoms of the spleen at the expense of blood counts,” in MF patients, she noted.

The study was sponsored by Sierra Oncology. Dr. Mesa disclosed relationships with companies including Constellation Pharmaceutical, La Jolla Pharma, and study sponsor Sierra Oncology, as well as funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, CTI, Genentech, Incyte, Mays Cancer Center, NCI, Promedior, and Samus. Dr. Hobbs had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 06/14/2022.

The investigational drug momelotinib has shown benefits in myelofibrosis in a new phase 3 trial, which could now lead to a Food and Drug Administration approval.

This drug had previously shown mixed results in a phase 3 trial funded by Gilead, which stopped development of the product; it was acquired by Sierra Oncology, which conducted the latest positive phase 3 trial and now plans to use it to apply for FDA approval.

Momelotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, significantly outperformed danazol on symptoms, spleen size, and anemia in adults with anemic myelofibrosis in the randomized trial of 195 patients from 21 countries presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current state for the treatment of myelofibrosis relies on JAK2,” said Ruben Mesa, MD, of the Mays Cancer Center at the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center.

“Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor.” However, in the early days of studying momelotinib,“it became clear that there was also potentially an improvement in anemia,” which may be related to the additional inhibition of ACVR1, he explained.

Data suggest that the ability to curb anemia in anemic myelofibrosis patients prolongs their lives for up to 8 years, Dr. Mesa added.

Previous studies, notably the phase 3 SIMPLIFY study, showed that momelotinib was associated with comparable effects on spleen volume, transfusion, and total symptom scores from baseline that were similar to ruxolitinib.

In the current study, known as MOMENTUM, a daily dose of momelotinib was compared to danazol for treatment of symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients who had previously received standard JAK-inhibitor therapy.

In the study, the researchers randomized 130 patients to momelotinib and 65 to danazol. After 24 weeks, those in the danazol group were allowed to cross over to momelotinib. The primary endpoint of the study was total symptom score (TSS) response after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included transfusion independence and splenic response at 24 weeks. The median age of the patients in the momelotinib group was 71 years, 60.8% were male, and 82% were white. The baseline demographics were not significantly different in the danazol group.

Overall, 24.6% of momelotinib patients responded with improved total symptom scores at 24 weeks vs. 9.2% of the danazol group. Spleen response also was significantly higher in the momelotinib group; 40% of patients showed a 25% reduction and 23% showed a 35% reduction, compared with 6.2% and 3.1%, respectively, of patients in the danazol group. Transfusion independence at week 24 also was higher for momelotinib patients, compared with danazol patients (31% vs. 20%, respectively, P = 0064).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 53.8% of momelotinib patients and 64.6% of danazol patients, and serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 40.0%, respectively. Nearly all patients had anemia, but only 27.7% and 26.2% of the momelotinib and danazol groups, respectively, had thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher. The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and increased blood creatinine. A total of 27.7% of the patients in the momelotinib group discontinued treatment; 16 of whom did so because of an adverse event.

Also, at 24 weeks, patients in the momelotinib group showed a trend towards increased overall survival, compared with danazol (HR, 0.506, P = 0.719).

With momelotinib, there is a consistent thrombocytopenic profile across subgroups, the data on which were presented separately at ASCO (poster 7061), Dr. Mesa added.

“We feel that these findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in MF patients, especially those with anemia,” he concluded.
 

Cytopenia data are exciting

The key finding in the current study is that “momelotinib leads to important endpoints including significant improvement in symptoms and spleen reduction,” said Dr. Gabriela Hobbs of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who served as the discussant for the study.

“I think a novel finding of momelotinib that is definitely exciting from the treatment perspective is that momelotinib can also lead to improvement in cytopenias,” she said. “We often have to decide between treating the symptoms of the spleen at the expense of blood counts,” in MF patients, she noted.

The study was sponsored by Sierra Oncology. Dr. Mesa disclosed relationships with companies including Constellation Pharmaceutical, La Jolla Pharma, and study sponsor Sierra Oncology, as well as funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, CTI, Genentech, Incyte, Mays Cancer Center, NCI, Promedior, and Samus. Dr. Hobbs had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 06/14/2022.

The investigational drug momelotinib has shown benefits in myelofibrosis in a new phase 3 trial, which could now lead to a Food and Drug Administration approval.

This drug had previously shown mixed results in a phase 3 trial funded by Gilead, which stopped development of the product; it was acquired by Sierra Oncology, which conducted the latest positive phase 3 trial and now plans to use it to apply for FDA approval.

Momelotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, significantly outperformed danazol on symptoms, spleen size, and anemia in adults with anemic myelofibrosis in the randomized trial of 195 patients from 21 countries presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“The current state for the treatment of myelofibrosis relies on JAK2,” said Ruben Mesa, MD, of the Mays Cancer Center at the UT Health San Antonio MD Anderson Cancer Center.

“Momelotinib is a JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor.” However, in the early days of studying momelotinib,“it became clear that there was also potentially an improvement in anemia,” which may be related to the additional inhibition of ACVR1, he explained.

Data suggest that the ability to curb anemia in anemic myelofibrosis patients prolongs their lives for up to 8 years, Dr. Mesa added.

Previous studies, notably the phase 3 SIMPLIFY study, showed that momelotinib was associated with comparable effects on spleen volume, transfusion, and total symptom scores from baseline that were similar to ruxolitinib.

In the current study, known as MOMENTUM, a daily dose of momelotinib was compared to danazol for treatment of symptomatic and anemic myelofibrosis (MF) patients who had previously received standard JAK-inhibitor therapy.

In the study, the researchers randomized 130 patients to momelotinib and 65 to danazol. After 24 weeks, those in the danazol group were allowed to cross over to momelotinib. The primary endpoint of the study was total symptom score (TSS) response after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included transfusion independence and splenic response at 24 weeks. The median age of the patients in the momelotinib group was 71 years, 60.8% were male, and 82% were white. The baseline demographics were not significantly different in the danazol group.

Overall, 24.6% of momelotinib patients responded with improved total symptom scores at 24 weeks vs. 9.2% of the danazol group. Spleen response also was significantly higher in the momelotinib group; 40% of patients showed a 25% reduction and 23% showed a 35% reduction, compared with 6.2% and 3.1%, respectively, of patients in the danazol group. Transfusion independence at week 24 also was higher for momelotinib patients, compared with danazol patients (31% vs. 20%, respectively, P = 0064).

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 53.8% of momelotinib patients and 64.6% of danazol patients, and serious adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 40.0%, respectively. Nearly all patients had anemia, but only 27.7% and 26.2% of the momelotinib and danazol groups, respectively, had thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or higher. The most common nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and increased blood creatinine. A total of 27.7% of the patients in the momelotinib group discontinued treatment; 16 of whom did so because of an adverse event.

Also, at 24 weeks, patients in the momelotinib group showed a trend towards increased overall survival, compared with danazol (HR, 0.506, P = 0.719).

With momelotinib, there is a consistent thrombocytopenic profile across subgroups, the data on which were presented separately at ASCO (poster 7061), Dr. Mesa added.

“We feel that these findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in MF patients, especially those with anemia,” he concluded.
 

Cytopenia data are exciting

The key finding in the current study is that “momelotinib leads to important endpoints including significant improvement in symptoms and spleen reduction,” said Dr. Gabriela Hobbs of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who served as the discussant for the study.

“I think a novel finding of momelotinib that is definitely exciting from the treatment perspective is that momelotinib can also lead to improvement in cytopenias,” she said. “We often have to decide between treating the symptoms of the spleen at the expense of blood counts,” in MF patients, she noted.

The study was sponsored by Sierra Oncology. Dr. Mesa disclosed relationships with companies including Constellation Pharmaceutical, La Jolla Pharma, and study sponsor Sierra Oncology, as well as funding from AbbVie, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, CTI, Genentech, Incyte, Mays Cancer Center, NCI, Promedior, and Samus. Dr. Hobbs had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 06/14/2022.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Goal-directed glycemic management – which may include new technologies for glucose monitoring – for non–critically ill hospitalized patients who have diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia can improve outcomes, according to a new practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.  

Even though roughly 35% of hospitalized patients have diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia, there is “wide variability in glycemic management in clinical practice,” writing panel chair Mary Korytkowski, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. “These patients get admitted to every patient service in the hospital, meaning that every clinical service will encounter this group of patients, and their glycemic management can have a major effect on their outcomes. Both short term and long term.”

This guideline provides strategies “to achieve previously recommended glycemic goals while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, and this includes inpatient use of insulin pump therapy or continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] devices, among others,” she said.

It also includes “recommendations for preoperative glycemic goals as well as when the use of correctional insulin – well known as sliding scale insulin – may be appropriate” and when it is not.

The document, which replaces a 2012 guideline, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

A multidisciplinary panel developed the document over the last 3 years to answer 10 clinical practice questions related to management of non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes or newly discovered hyperglycemia.
 

Use of CGM devices in hospital

The first recommendation is: “In adults with insulin-treated diabetes hospitalized for noncritical illness who are at high risk of hypoglycemia, we suggest the use of real-time [CGM] with confirmatory bedside point-of-care blood glucose monitoring for adjustments in insulin dosing rather than point-of-care blood glucose rather than testing alone in hospital settings where resources and training are available.” (Conditional recommendation. Low certainty of evidence).

“We were actually very careful in terms of looking at the data” for use of CGMs, Dr. Korytkowski said in an interview.

Although CGMs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the outpatient setting, and that’s becoming the standard of care there, they are not yet approved for in-hospital use.

However, the FDA granted an emergency allowance for use of CGMs in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That was “when everyone was scrambling for what to do,” Dr. Korytkowski noted. “There was a shortage of personal protective equipment and a real interest in trying to limit the amount of exposure of healthcare personnel in some of these really critically ill patients for whom intravenous insulin therapy was used to control their glucose level.”

On March 1, the FDA granted Breakthrough Devices Designation for Dexcom CGM use in the hospital setting.

The new guideline suggests CGM be used to detect trends in glycemic management, with insulin dosing decisions made with point-of-care glucose measure (the standard of care).

To implement CGM for glycemic management in hospitals, Dr. Korytkowski said, would require “extensive staff and nursing education to have people with expertise available to provide support to nursing personnel who are both placing these devices, changing these devices, looking at trends, and then knowing when to remove them for certain procedures such as MRI or radiologic procedures.”

“We know that not all hospitals may be readily available to use these devices,” she said. “It is an area of active research. But the use of these devices during the pandemic, in both critical care and non–critical care setting has really provided us with a lot of information that was used to formulate this suggestion in the guideline.”

The document addresses the following areas: CGM, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump therapy, inpatient diabetes education, prespecified preoperative glycemic targets, use of neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin for glucocorticoid or enteral nutrition-associated hyperglycemia, noninsulin therapies, preoperative carbohydrate-containing oral fluids, carbohydrate counting for prandial (mealtime) insulin dosing, and correctional and scheduled (basal or basal bolus) insulin therapies.

Nine key recommendations

Dr. Korytkowski identified nine key recommendations:

• CGM systems can help guide glycemic management with reduced risk for hypoglycemia.
• Patients experiencing glucocorticoid- or enteral nutrition–associated hyperglycemia require scheduled insulin therapy to address anticipated glucose excursions.
• Selected patients using insulin pump therapy prior to a hospital admission can continue to use these devices in the hospital if they have the mental and physical capacity to do so with knowledgeable hospital personnel.
• Diabetes self-management education provided to hospitalized patients can promote improved glycemic control following discharge with reductions in the risk for hospital readmission. “We know that is recommended for patients in the outpatient setting but often they do not get this,” she said. “We were able to observe that this can also impact long-term outcomes “
• Patients with diabetes scheduled for elective surgery may have improved postoperative outcomes when preoperative hemoglobin A1c is 8% or less and preoperative blood glucose is less than 180 mg/dL. “This recommendation answers the question: ‘Where should glycemic goals be for people who are undergoing surgery?’ ”
• Providing preoperative carbohydrate-containing beverages to patients with known diabetes is not recommended.
• Patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or well-managed diabetes on noninsulin therapy may be treated with correctional insulin alone as initial therapy at hospital admission.
• Some noninsulin diabetes therapies can be used in combination with correction insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who have mild hyperglycemia.
• Correctional insulin – “otherwise known as sliding-scale insulin” –  can be used as initial therapy for patients with newly recognized hyperglycemia or type 2 diabetes treated with noninsulin therapy prior to hospital admission.
• Scheduled insulin therapy is preferred for patients experiencing persistent blood glucose values greater than 180 mg/dL and is recommended for patients using insulin therapy prior to admission. 

The guideline writers’ hopes

“We hope that this guideline will resolve debates” about appropriate preoperative glycemic management and when sliding-scale insulin can be used and should not be used, said Dr. Korytkowski.

The authors also hope that “it will stimulate research funding for this very important aspect of diabetes care, and that hospitals will recognize the importance of having access to knowledgeable diabetes care and education specialists who can provide staff education regarding inpatient glycemic management, provide oversight for patients using insulin pump therapy or CGM devices, and empower hospital nurses to provide diabetes [self-management] education prior to patient discharge.”

Claire Pegg, the patient representative on the panel, hopes “that this guideline serves as the beginning of a conversation that will allow inpatient caregivers to provide individualized care to patients – some of whom may be self-sufficient with their glycemic management and others who need additional assistance.” 

Development of the guideline was funded by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Korytkowski has reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following tumor removal in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, an absorbable collagen tile can deliver a controlled and therapeutic dose of radiation that targets remaining tumor cells and spares healthy tissue, new research suggests.

The results showed inserting a collagen matrix containing radioactive seeds into the brain postsurgery did not impede wound healing. It also showed a favorable safety profile, researchers note.

Benefits for patients undergoing this GammaTile (GT) intervention include not having to wait weeks to receive radiation treatment, which in turn improves their quality of life, said study investigator Clark C. Chen, MD, PhD, chair, department of neurosurgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

“These initial results are highly promising and offer hope for patients afflicted with an otherwise devastating disease,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

If replicated in larger trials, GT therapy “could define a new standard of care, and there would really be no reason why patients shouldn’t get this therapy,” he added.

This is the first clinical series describing GT use since its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for recurrent brain cancer.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and were published recently in Neuro-Oncology Advances.

Radioactive seeds

GT therapy is a version of brachytherapy where radioactive sources are placed adjacent to cancerous tissue. It consists of radioactive seeds embedded with a collagen tile.

The neurosurgeon inserts these “tiles” immediately after tumor removal to cover the entire resection cavity, Dr. Chen said. The tiles maintain the cavity architecture to prevent radiation “hot spots” associated with cavity collapse.

Dr. Chen noted the therapy is “short range,” with most of the radiation delivered within 8 millimeters of the radioactive seeds.

The radiation lasts for about a month and the collagen tiles are eventually absorbed within the body. “You put in the tiles and you don’t need to do anything more,” Dr. Chen said.

GT has a number of advantages. Unlike with traditional brachytherapy, the collagen tile provides a buffer around the radiation sources, allowing delivery of the optimal radiation dose while preserving healthy tissue.

It also avoids the up-to-6-weeks patients have to wait postsurgery to get external beam radiation therapy. “If you start radiation too early, it actually compromises wound healing, and in the meantime the tumor is growing,” said Dr. Chen.

“I have several patients where I removed a large tumor and within that 6-week period, the tumor came back entirely,” he added.

With the gamma-tile, however, radiation from the seeds kills the tumor while the body heals.

Safety profile

The study included 22 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 15 men, 7 women) with wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase glioblastoma. They were all having surgery for recurrent tumors.

“One of the most challenging aspects of glioblastomas is that not only do the tumors come back, they come back immediately adjacent to where you have done the surgery, and for many patients this is demoralizing,” Dr. Chen said.

Six participants had 0 ⁶ -Methylguanine-DNA methyltranferase (MGMT) methylated glioblastoma, while the others had unmethylated MGMT.

The mean follow-up from initial diagnosis was 733 days (2 years).

Results showed one patient had to be readmitted to the hospital for hydrocephalus, but there were no re-admissions within 30 days attributable to GT.

Despite participants having undergone a second and third resection through the same surgical incision, there were no wound infections. “One of the concerns of giving radiation right after surgery is it can compromise wound healing, and this is why you wait 6 weeks,” Dr. Chen noted.

He stressed that no patient in the study suffered from adverse radiation effects that required medical or surgical intervention.

As the radiation is so short-range, hair loss and skin irritation are not side effects of GT, he added.

“The radiation is inside the brain and highly targeted, so it doesn’t hit hair follicles,” said Dr. Chen. “As best as I can observe in these patients, I did not see toxicity associated with radiation.”

One and done

Among the 22 participants, 18 had neurologic symptoms at baseline. There were no new neurologic deficits that developed after GT placement.

In addition, GT therapy improved “local control” — preventing the tumor from growing back at the site of the surgery. The local control was 86% at 6 months and 81% at 12 months.

The median progression-free survival was about 8 months. The median overall survival was 20 months (about 600 days) for the unmethylated MGMT group and 37.4 months (about 1120 days) for the methylated group.

Outcomes compared favorably to an independent glioblastoma cohort of similar patients who did not receive GT treatment during the study period, Dr. Chen noted.

“This therapy can potentially redefine how we treat glioblastoma patients whose cancer came back,” he said.

A study limitation was that it did not include quality-of-life data, which makes it challenging to assess the therapy’s overall impact, Dr. Chen said. However, he added that from his experience, patients very much appreciate not having to repeatedly take time off work for clinic or hospital visits to receive radiation treatments.

“One of the beauties of this therapy is it’s a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Interesting, timely

Commenting for this news organization, William T. Curry Jr, MD, co-director at MassGeneral Neuroscience and director of neurosurgical oncology at Mass General Cancer Center, Boston, called the study “interesting and timely.”

These new data “underscore that GT is safe in patients that have undergone gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma and that rates of progression free survival may exceed those treated with resection alone,” said Dr. Curry, who was not involved with the research.

“Surgeons are excited about anything that has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with this very challenging disease, and it is wonderful to be able to offer hope and survival tools to patients,” he added.

However, Dr. Curry noted there are challenges and potential biases when studying survival in cancer patients without conducting a randomization process. The investigators “admit to methodological flaws inherent in the single-arm design in a patient population with recurrent glioblastoma not treated uniformly,” he said.

In addition, he noted overall survival may not have been related to the GT intervention. “Multicenter randomization is probably required to get to the bottom of the survival advantage in different subsets of glioblastoma patients,” Dr. Curry said.

Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy, appropriate indications, and timing of the intervention, but “I would support a randomized multicenter study in patients undergoing near gross total resection of recurrent glioblastoma,” he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen and Dr. Curry have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued new guidance on the use of radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases, an update on its 2012 document.  

“In the decade since the previous ASTRO brain metastases guideline, there has been a tremendous evolution in the way we manage patients’ disease,” said Paul D. Brown, MD, chair of the guideline task force and a professor of radiation oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  

“The development of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has allowed treatment of limited brain metastases alone, often in a single fraction, while largely sparing the surrounding brain,” he elaborated in a statement. Also, novel techniques such as hippocampal avoidance with whole-brain radiation can greatly improve quality of life, he added.

The guideline was published May 6 in Practical Radiation Oncology.

“With the emergence of novel radiotherapy techniques and technologies, brain-penetrating drug therapies and neurosurgical interventions, modern management of brain metastases has become increasingly personalized, complex and multidisciplinary,” Vinai Gondi, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force and director of research and education at the Northwestern Medicine Cancer Center and Proton Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We developed this guideline to help inform and guide clinicians in patient-centered, multidisciplinary care for their patients with brain metastases,” he added.

Key recommendations

Overall, the recommendations address a wide range of topics related to radiation therapy in patients with cancer that has spread to the brain,  including delivery techniques for radiation therapy to manage both unresected and resected brain metastases. The guideline also includes treatment algorithms for limited brain metastases and extensive brain metastases.

Key recommendations are as follows:

For patients with intact/unresected brain metastases:

• SRS is recommended for patients with 1-4 brain metastases and reasonable performance status (ECOG performance status 0-2); SRS is conditionally recommended for those with 5-10 brain metastases and reasonable performance status; for patients with tumors exerting mass effect and/or larger size, multidisciplinary discussion with neurosurgery to consider surgical resection is suggested.
• Upfront local therapy (radiation and/or surgery) is strongly recommended for patients with symptomatic brain metastases. 
• For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases who are eligible for central nervous system-directed systemic therapy, multidisciplinary and patient-centered decision-making to determine whether local therapy may be safely deferred is conditionally recommended.
• Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is recommended as a primary treatment for patients with favorable prognosis who have brain metastases that are ineligible for surgery and/or SRS. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) is recommended when appropriate to preserve memory function, as is the addition of memantine to delay neurocognitive decline. Adjuvant WBRT added to SRS routinely is not recommended.
• Supportive care only, without WBRT, should be considered for patients with poor prognosis and brain metastases. Reasonable options for this population include palliative care or hospice, or short-course WBRT for symptomatic brain metastases
• Recommendations also include guidance for SRS and WBRT dosing as well as the use of single-fraction vs hypofractionated SRS. Although SRS use is driven by the number of brain metastases, it is critical that other important factors (eg, total tumor volume and location, patient age, and extracranial disease status) should be taken into consideration during patient-centered decision-making by the multidisciplinary team.

For patients with resected brain metastases:

• Radiation therapy is recommended for all patients after resection in order to improve intracranial control.
• For patients with limited brain metastases after resection, postoperative SRS is recommended over WBRT to preserve the patient’s neurocognitive function and quality of life.
• As a potential alternative to SRS postresection, SRS prior to brain metastasis resection is conditionally recommended.

Updating the guidelines

ASTRO emphasizes that the scope of this paper is limited to the radiotherapeutic management of intact and resected brain metastases resulting from nonhematologic solid tumors. It provides guidance on the reasonable use of modern radiation therapy strategies, including single-fraction and fractionated (ie, hypofractionated SRS) SRS and HA-WBRT, and also discusses clinical considerations in selecting the optimal radiation therapy strategy or in deferring it in favor of best supportive care or close neuro-oncologic surveillance.

The authors note, however, that beyond the scope of this guideline, there are many other important questions that may be the subject of other guidance, such as the appropriate role for CNS-active systemic therapies and/or surgical intervention.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.