User login
‘Unlimited’ cancer costs: The Medicare Part D dilemma
Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.
That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.
“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”
That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.
This situation is hardly unique.
Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.
In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine,
The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).
According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.
Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.
In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”
“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.
What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.
Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.
Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).
For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.
Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.
This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.
Another arbitrary difference: who qualifies for low-income subsidies under Part D. A single woman making the current median income, for instance, would not qualify for a Part D subsidy. If she was diagnosed with breast cancer and needed palbociclib, her cost for that drug alone would be nearly half her annual income, and that does not include premiums and other health care costs.
The high cost can mean foregoing treatment, stopping treatment early, or reducing spending on necessities such as food and housing. In fact, a recent study from Dr. Dusetzina and colleagues showed that for beneficiaries with cancer who do not receive subsidies under Part D, nearly 30% of initial prescriptions for specialty oncology drugs go unfilled.
Fortunately, that wasn’t the case for Dr. Dusetzina’s mother.
“Her cancer subtype is best treated with drugs covered under her medical benefit, and she has an out-of-pocket limit on that benefit,” she said. “That makes the financial difficulty less of a concern right now.”
But with a different subtype, it could have easily gone another way.
On Twitter, Dr. Dusetzina called for congressional action: “There is a lot going on now, but @SenateDems & @SenateGOP this needs to be fixed. #Medicare beneficiaries are counting on you to make sure that they can afford the drugs they need. We know that 1 in 3 people in #PartD don’t fill their cancer drugs. That is unacceptable.”
Dr. Dusetzina’s work is supported by the Commonwealth Fund. She reported relationships with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, National Academy for State Health Policy, and West Health Council, including grant funding/contracts and/or consulting work. She also serves as a commissioner for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.
That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.
“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”
That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.
This situation is hardly unique.
Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.
In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine,
The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).
According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.
Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.
In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”
“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.
What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.
Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.
Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).
For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.
Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.
This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.
Another arbitrary difference: who qualifies for low-income subsidies under Part D. A single woman making the current median income, for instance, would not qualify for a Part D subsidy. If she was diagnosed with breast cancer and needed palbociclib, her cost for that drug alone would be nearly half her annual income, and that does not include premiums and other health care costs.
The high cost can mean foregoing treatment, stopping treatment early, or reducing spending on necessities such as food and housing. In fact, a recent study from Dr. Dusetzina and colleagues showed that for beneficiaries with cancer who do not receive subsidies under Part D, nearly 30% of initial prescriptions for specialty oncology drugs go unfilled.
Fortunately, that wasn’t the case for Dr. Dusetzina’s mother.
“Her cancer subtype is best treated with drugs covered under her medical benefit, and she has an out-of-pocket limit on that benefit,” she said. “That makes the financial difficulty less of a concern right now.”
But with a different subtype, it could have easily gone another way.
On Twitter, Dr. Dusetzina called for congressional action: “There is a lot going on now, but @SenateDems & @SenateGOP this needs to be fixed. #Medicare beneficiaries are counting on you to make sure that they can afford the drugs they need. We know that 1 in 3 people in #PartD don’t fill their cancer drugs. That is unacceptable.”
Dr. Dusetzina’s work is supported by the Commonwealth Fund. She reported relationships with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, National Academy for State Health Policy, and West Health Council, including grant funding/contracts and/or consulting work. She also serves as a commissioner for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.
That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.
“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”
That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.
This situation is hardly unique.
Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.
In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine,
The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).
According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.
Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.
In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”
“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.
What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.
Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.
Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).
For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.
Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.
This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.
Another arbitrary difference: who qualifies for low-income subsidies under Part D. A single woman making the current median income, for instance, would not qualify for a Part D subsidy. If she was diagnosed with breast cancer and needed palbociclib, her cost for that drug alone would be nearly half her annual income, and that does not include premiums and other health care costs.
The high cost can mean foregoing treatment, stopping treatment early, or reducing spending on necessities such as food and housing. In fact, a recent study from Dr. Dusetzina and colleagues showed that for beneficiaries with cancer who do not receive subsidies under Part D, nearly 30% of initial prescriptions for specialty oncology drugs go unfilled.
Fortunately, that wasn’t the case for Dr. Dusetzina’s mother.
“Her cancer subtype is best treated with drugs covered under her medical benefit, and she has an out-of-pocket limit on that benefit,” she said. “That makes the financial difficulty less of a concern right now.”
But with a different subtype, it could have easily gone another way.
On Twitter, Dr. Dusetzina called for congressional action: “There is a lot going on now, but @SenateDems & @SenateGOP this needs to be fixed. #Medicare beneficiaries are counting on you to make sure that they can afford the drugs they need. We know that 1 in 3 people in #PartD don’t fill their cancer drugs. That is unacceptable.”
Dr. Dusetzina’s work is supported by the Commonwealth Fund. She reported relationships with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, National Academy for State Health Policy, and West Health Council, including grant funding/contracts and/or consulting work. She also serves as a commissioner for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Uterine cancer mortality is highest in Black women
A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.
“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.
Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).
Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.
“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.
That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.
Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.
A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.
“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.
Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).
Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.
“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.
That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.
Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.
A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.
“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.
The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.
Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).
Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.
“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.
That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.
Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line therapy in type 2 diabetes?
Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.
Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.
The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough
However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”
Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”
Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.
In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.
He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.
“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”
The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.
“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”
Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.
“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.
First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar
The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.
From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.
The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.
Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).
However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.
Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.
Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
How does cost factor in?
A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.
Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.
However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.
He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”
Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”
Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”
The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.
Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.
The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough
However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”
Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”
Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.
In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.
He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.
“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”
The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.
“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”
Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.
“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.
First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar
The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.
From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.
The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.
Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).
However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.
Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.
Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
How does cost factor in?
A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.
Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.
However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.
He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”
Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”
Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”
The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.
Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.
The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.
The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough
However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”
Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”
Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.
In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.
He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.
“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”
The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.
“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”
Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.
“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.
First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar
The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.
From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.
The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.
Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).
However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.
Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.
Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
How does cost factor in?
A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.
Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.
However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.
He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”
Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”
Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”
The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Vitamin D doesn’t reduce type 2 diabetes risk ... or does it?
Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.
The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.
The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.
Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.
However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... ,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials
The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”
The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.
But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.
Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.
“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.
He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”
Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D
Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”
He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”
Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance
The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.
During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).
However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).
In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).
“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.
Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.
The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.
The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.
The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.
Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.
However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... ,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials
The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”
The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.
But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.
Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.
“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.
He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”
Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D
Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”
He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”
Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance
The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.
During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).
However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).
In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).
“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.
Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.
The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.
The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.
The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.
Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.
However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... ,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials
The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”
The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.
But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.
Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.
“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.
He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”
Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D
Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”
He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”
Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance
The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.
During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).
However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).
In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).
“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.
Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.
The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BMJ
Experts endorse plant-based diet for type 2 diabetes remission
Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).
The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.
“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.
“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.
The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.
“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.
“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
Consensus on 69 statements
The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.
Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:
- Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
- High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
- Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
- A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
- Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
- Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.
Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery
Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.
Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.
“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.
However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.
Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”
“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.
“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.
Need for more randomized trials
Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”
Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.
The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out.
Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”
This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).
The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.
“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.
“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.
The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.
“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.
“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
Consensus on 69 statements
The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.
Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:
- Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
- High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
- Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
- A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
- Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
- Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.
Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery
Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.
Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.
“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.
However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.
Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”
“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.
“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.
Need for more randomized trials
Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”
Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.
The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out.
Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”
This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).
The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.
“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.
“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.
The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.
“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.
“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
Consensus on 69 statements
The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.
Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:
- Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
- High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
- Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
- A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
- Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
- Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.
Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery
Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.
Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.
“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.
However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.
Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”
“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.
“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.
Need for more randomized trials
Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”
Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.
The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out.
Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”
This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Newly approved tirzepatide’s retail price announced
Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – the new twincretin approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – was priced by Lilly, the company that will market the drug, at a list price of $974.33 for four weekly doses regardless of dose size, a cost that adds up to about $12,666 per year, according to a statement made on May 20 by a Lilly spokesperson.
This price puts tirzepatide, which combines the activity of two of the primary human incretins in one molecule, roughly in the same ballpark as what might be its main competitor, semaglutide (Ozempic) for type 2 diabetes, which retails at many U.S. pharmacies for about $925 for four weekly doses, or about $12,025 per year, although Ozempic’s posted retail price is about $100 higher for four doses.
According to the Lilly spokesperson, discount programs could reduce the monthly out-of-pocket cost for patients to as little as $25.
Tirzepatide, which received approval from the FDA on May 13, is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, which is indicated as Wegovy for weight loss in patients with obesity regardless of diabetes status.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – the new twincretin approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – was priced by Lilly, the company that will market the drug, at a list price of $974.33 for four weekly doses regardless of dose size, a cost that adds up to about $12,666 per year, according to a statement made on May 20 by a Lilly spokesperson.
This price puts tirzepatide, which combines the activity of two of the primary human incretins in one molecule, roughly in the same ballpark as what might be its main competitor, semaglutide (Ozempic) for type 2 diabetes, which retails at many U.S. pharmacies for about $925 for four weekly doses, or about $12,025 per year, although Ozempic’s posted retail price is about $100 higher for four doses.
According to the Lilly spokesperson, discount programs could reduce the monthly out-of-pocket cost for patients to as little as $25.
Tirzepatide, which received approval from the FDA on May 13, is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, which is indicated as Wegovy for weight loss in patients with obesity regardless of diabetes status.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – the new twincretin approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – was priced by Lilly, the company that will market the drug, at a list price of $974.33 for four weekly doses regardless of dose size, a cost that adds up to about $12,666 per year, according to a statement made on May 20 by a Lilly spokesperson.
This price puts tirzepatide, which combines the activity of two of the primary human incretins in one molecule, roughly in the same ballpark as what might be its main competitor, semaglutide (Ozempic) for type 2 diabetes, which retails at many U.S. pharmacies for about $925 for four weekly doses, or about $12,025 per year, although Ozempic’s posted retail price is about $100 higher for four doses.
According to the Lilly spokesperson, discount programs could reduce the monthly out-of-pocket cost for patients to as little as $25.
Tirzepatide, which received approval from the FDA on May 13, is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, which is indicated as Wegovy for weight loss in patients with obesity regardless of diabetes status.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jury is in? Survival benefit with lap surgery for rectal cancer
, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.
The estimated 5-year OS rate for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was 76.2%, vs. 72.7% for those who had open surgery.
“The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery is encouraging and supports the routine use of laparoscopic surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery,” wrote the authors, led by Leping Li, MD, of the department of gastrointestinal surgery, Shandong (China) Provincial Hospital.
The article was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Surgery is an essential component in treating rectal cancer, but the benefits of laparoscopic vs. open surgery are not clear. Over the past 15 years, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown comparable long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open surgery. However, in most meta-analyses that assessed the evidence more broadly, researchers used an “inappropriate” method for the pooled analysis. Dr. Li and colleagues wanted to perform their own meta-analysis to more definitively understand whether the evidence on long-term outcomes supports or opposes the use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
In the current study, the authors conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using time-to-event data and focused on the long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic or open surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer.
Ten articles involving 12 RCTs and 3,709 participants were included. In these, 2,097 patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic surgery, and 1,612 were randomly assigned to undergo open surgery. The studies covered a global population, with participants from Europe, North America, and East Asia.
In a one-stage analysis, the authors found that disease-free survival was slightly better among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, but the results were statistically similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .26).
However, when it came to OS, those who had undergone laparoscopic surgery fared significantly better (HR, 0.85; P = .02).
These results held up in the two-stage analysis for both disease-free survival (HR, 0.92; P = .25) and OS (HR, 0.85; P = .02). A sensitivity analyses conducted with large RCTs yielded similar pooled effect sizes for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.84; P = .03).
The authors highlighted several reasons why laparoscopic surgery may be associated with better survival. First, the faster recovery from the minimally invasive procedure could allow patients to begin adjuvant therapy earlier. In addition, the reduced stress responses and higher levels of immune function among patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery may contribute to a long-term survival advantage.
“These findings address concerns regarding the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery,” the authors wrote. However, “further studies are necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the positive effect of laparoscopic surgery on OS.”
No outside funding source was noted. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.
The estimated 5-year OS rate for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was 76.2%, vs. 72.7% for those who had open surgery.
“The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery is encouraging and supports the routine use of laparoscopic surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery,” wrote the authors, led by Leping Li, MD, of the department of gastrointestinal surgery, Shandong (China) Provincial Hospital.
The article was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Surgery is an essential component in treating rectal cancer, but the benefits of laparoscopic vs. open surgery are not clear. Over the past 15 years, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown comparable long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open surgery. However, in most meta-analyses that assessed the evidence more broadly, researchers used an “inappropriate” method for the pooled analysis. Dr. Li and colleagues wanted to perform their own meta-analysis to more definitively understand whether the evidence on long-term outcomes supports or opposes the use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
In the current study, the authors conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using time-to-event data and focused on the long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic or open surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer.
Ten articles involving 12 RCTs and 3,709 participants were included. In these, 2,097 patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic surgery, and 1,612 were randomly assigned to undergo open surgery. The studies covered a global population, with participants from Europe, North America, and East Asia.
In a one-stage analysis, the authors found that disease-free survival was slightly better among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, but the results were statistically similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .26).
However, when it came to OS, those who had undergone laparoscopic surgery fared significantly better (HR, 0.85; P = .02).
These results held up in the two-stage analysis for both disease-free survival (HR, 0.92; P = .25) and OS (HR, 0.85; P = .02). A sensitivity analyses conducted with large RCTs yielded similar pooled effect sizes for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.84; P = .03).
The authors highlighted several reasons why laparoscopic surgery may be associated with better survival. First, the faster recovery from the minimally invasive procedure could allow patients to begin adjuvant therapy earlier. In addition, the reduced stress responses and higher levels of immune function among patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery may contribute to a long-term survival advantage.
“These findings address concerns regarding the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery,” the authors wrote. However, “further studies are necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the positive effect of laparoscopic surgery on OS.”
No outside funding source was noted. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.
The estimated 5-year OS rate for patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery was 76.2%, vs. 72.7% for those who had open surgery.
“The survival benefit of laparoscopic surgery is encouraging and supports the routine use of laparoscopic surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer in the era of minimally invasive surgery,” wrote the authors, led by Leping Li, MD, of the department of gastrointestinal surgery, Shandong (China) Provincial Hospital.
The article was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Surgery is an essential component in treating rectal cancer, but the benefits of laparoscopic vs. open surgery are not clear. Over the past 15 years, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown comparable long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open surgery. However, in most meta-analyses that assessed the evidence more broadly, researchers used an “inappropriate” method for the pooled analysis. Dr. Li and colleagues wanted to perform their own meta-analysis to more definitively understand whether the evidence on long-term outcomes supports or opposes the use of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
In the current study, the authors conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using time-to-event data and focused on the long-term survival outcomes after laparoscopic or open surgery for adult patients with rectal cancer.
Ten articles involving 12 RCTs and 3,709 participants were included. In these, 2,097 patients were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic surgery, and 1,612 were randomly assigned to undergo open surgery. The studies covered a global population, with participants from Europe, North America, and East Asia.
In a one-stage analysis, the authors found that disease-free survival was slightly better among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, but the results were statistically similar (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; P = .26).
However, when it came to OS, those who had undergone laparoscopic surgery fared significantly better (HR, 0.85; P = .02).
These results held up in the two-stage analysis for both disease-free survival (HR, 0.92; P = .25) and OS (HR, 0.85; P = .02). A sensitivity analyses conducted with large RCTs yielded similar pooled effect sizes for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; P = .20) and OS (HR, 0.84; P = .03).
The authors highlighted several reasons why laparoscopic surgery may be associated with better survival. First, the faster recovery from the minimally invasive procedure could allow patients to begin adjuvant therapy earlier. In addition, the reduced stress responses and higher levels of immune function among patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery may contribute to a long-term survival advantage.
“These findings address concerns regarding the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery,” the authors wrote. However, “further studies are necessary to explore the specific mechanisms underlying the positive effect of laparoscopic surgery on OS.”
No outside funding source was noted. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Male breast cancer risk linked with infertility
, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.
A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.
“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”
The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).
Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
Raised risk with history of male infertility
Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).
In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.
Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.
Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
Potential underlying factors
“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”
Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”
She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.
A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.
The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.
“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.
“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.
“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”
Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.
A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.
“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”
The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).
Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
Raised risk with history of male infertility
Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).
In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.
Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.
Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
Potential underlying factors
“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”
Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”
She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.
A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.
The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.
“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.
“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.
“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”
Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
, according to new research funded by the charity Breast Cancer Now and published in Breast Cancer Research. The study is one of the largest ever into male breast cancer, enabling the team to show a highly statistically significant association.
A link with infertility had been suspected, since parity markedly reduces the risk of female breast cancer; there are known genetic links in both sexes, and a high risk of both breast cancer and infertility among men with Klinefelter syndrome, suggesting some sex hormone-related involvement. However, the rarity of breast cancer in men – with an annual incidence of about 370 cases and 80 deaths per year in the United Kingdom – meant that past studies were necessarily small and yielded mixed results.
“Compared with previous studies, our study of male breast cancer is large,” said study coauthor Michael Jones, PhD, of the division of genetics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London. “It was carried out nationwide across England and Wales and was set in motion more than 15 years ago. Because of how rare male breast cancer is, it took us over 12 years to identify and interview the nearly 2,000 men with breast cancer who were part of this study.”
The latest research is part of the wider Breast Cancer Now Male Breast Cancer Study, launched by the charity in 2007. For the new study, the ICR team interviewed 1,998 males living in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. All were aged under 80 but most 60 or older at diagnosis; 92% of their tumors were invasive, and almost all were estrogen receptor positive (98.5% of those with known status).
Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 1,597 men without breast cancer, matched by age at diagnosis and geographic region, recruited from male non-blood relatives of cases and from husbands of women participating in the Generations cohort study of breast cancer etiology.
Raised risk with history of male infertility
Overall, 112 cases (5.6%) and 80 controls (5.0%) reported that they had had infertility problems for which they or their partner had consulted a doctor or infertility clinic. This represented a raised odds ratio of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.77), which was statistically not significant. However, when analyzed by outcome of the infertility consultation, there was a significant and more than doubled risk of breast cancer among men who were diagnosed as the source of the couple’s infertility (OR = 2.03 [1.18-3.49]), whereas this was not the case among men whose partner was the source (OR = 0.86 [0.51-1.45]) or for whom no source was identified (OR = 1.26 [0.71-2.24]).
In addition, proportionately fewer cases (1,615, or 80.8%) compared with controls (1,423, or 89.1%) had fathered any children, also giving a statistically significantly raised risk of breast cancer for men with no biological children (OR = 1.50 [1.21-1.86], P < .001), “congruent with infertility as a risk factor,” the authors said. The risk was statistically significant for invasive tumors but not for the much smaller number of in situ tumors.
Analysis by number of children showed a decreasing risk with increasing numbers of children, with a highly significant (P < .001) inverse trend where zero was included as a value, but a borderline significant trend (P = .04) if it was not. The team noted that number of children beyond one is difficult to interpret as an indicator of male fertility, since it may more reflect social and cultural factors than fertility per se.
Baseline demographic factors were adjusted for in the risk analyses, and results were not materially changed by sensitivity analyses adjusting additionally for alcohol consumption, smoking, liver disease, and family history of breast cancer. The association also largely remained after exclusion of patients with other preexisting potential confounders including severe obesity and testicular abnormalities, and was consistent irrespective of HER-2 status (there were too few ER-negative tumors to analyze results by ER status).
Potential underlying factors
“The causes of breast cancer in men are largely unknown, partly because it is rare and partly because previous studies have been small,” Dr. Jones said. “The evidence presented in our study suggests that the association of infertility and breast cancer should be confirmed with further research, and future investigations are needed into the potential underlying factors, such as hormone imbalances.”
Commenting on the study, Fiona Osgun, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told this news organization: “Overall, there isn’t strong evidence that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer. This study helps to shed light onto a cancer type that is sadly still not very well understood, but much more research is needed to say that infertility is a risk factor for male breast cancer.”
She added that although male breast cancer is a rare condition, it’s still important for men to be aware of what looks and feels normal for them, and to be encouraged to seek medical advice if something is not quite right.
A spokesperson for Breast Cancer UK told this news organization: “[We] believe it’s important to understand what leads to breast cancer in men as well as women and that high quality, long-term studies such as this will help with this understanding.
The findings are consistent with an earlier study that found that U.S. men who have never fathered children are at higher risk of breast cancer. This new long-term U.K. study provides strong evidence, which supports this finding.
“As the authors note, the biological reasons are unclear, but may be associated with altered hormone levels. The ratio of circulating levels of estrogen and androgens (e.g. testosterone) is crucial in healthy functioning of breast tissue. Disruption to this, for example as a result of damage to testes, may affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.
“It is also possible that external factors, such as exposure to certain endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which affect sex hormones, may also affect both fertility and breast cancer risk.
“More studies into breast cancer in men are needed to help us understand better all the risk factors associated with this disease including both hormonal factors and chemical exposures.”
Simon Vincent, PhD, director of research, support, and influencing at Breast Cancer Now, said: “Research has discovered different treatments directed at some features of breast cancer in women; however, breast cancer is not as well understood for men. This is why Breast Cancer Now funds the Male Breast Cancer Study, which looks at what might cause the disease in men. Discovering a link between infertility and male breast cancer is a step towards us understanding male breast cancer and how we could find more ways to diagnose and treat men – and possibly women – with this devastating disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.
FROM BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
Cancer patients unaware of their increased thrombosis risk
It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.
This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.
A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.
“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.
It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.
In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.
“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.
“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
Poor understanding
One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.
Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.
When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.
Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.
The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
The Italian situation
The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.
The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).
The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.
Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.
In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
Which way forward?
“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.
The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.
So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.
“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.
Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.
The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.
Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.
“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy.
It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.
This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.
A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.
“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.
It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.
In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.
“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.
“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
Poor understanding
One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.
Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.
When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.
Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.
The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
The Italian situation
The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.
The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).
The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.
Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.
In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
Which way forward?
“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.
The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.
So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.
“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.
Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.
The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.
Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.
“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy.
It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.
This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.
A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.
“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.
It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.
In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.
“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.
“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
Poor understanding
One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.
Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.
When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.
Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.
The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
The Italian situation
The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.
The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).
The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.
Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.
In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
Which way forward?
“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.
The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.
So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.
“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.
Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.
The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.
Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.
“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy.
FROM CANCER TREATMENT AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Clozapine and cancer risk in schizophrenia patients: New data
Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
An unresolved issue
Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.
Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.
Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.
“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen.
Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.
To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.
“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.
The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.
Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
Patient education, vigilant monitoring
The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.
Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.
Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).
Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.
Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.
The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.
These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
A ‘vital’ medication
Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.
“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.
In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.
The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.
“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.
“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
An unresolved issue
Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.
Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.
Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.
“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen.
Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.
To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.
“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.
The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.
Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
Patient education, vigilant monitoring
The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.
Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.
Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).
Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.
Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.
The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.
These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
A ‘vital’ medication
Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.
“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.
In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.
The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.
“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.
“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
An unresolved issue
Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.
Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.
Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.
“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen.
Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.
To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.
“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.
The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.
Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
Patient education, vigilant monitoring
The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.
Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.
Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).
Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.
Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.
The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.
These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
A ‘vital’ medication
Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.
“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.
In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.
The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.
“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.
“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY