User login
VIDEO: Cervical cancer laparotomy outperforms minimally invasive surgery
NEW ORLEANS – Use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy to treat early-stage cervical cancer has grown over the past decade, and in current U.S. practice, roughly half of these cases are done with a minimally-invasive approach, with the rest done by conventional laparotomy. But the first data ever reported from a large, prospective trial that compared the efficacy of both methods for cervical cancer had the unexpected finding that disease-free survival following minimally invasive procedures significantly lagged behind radical hysterectomies done by open laparotomy, Pedro T. Ramirez, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.
Just after this report came results from a second study that used propensity score–adjusted observational data from the National Cancer Database and found significantly worse overall survival following minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, compared with laparotomy, said J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Both findings were “very surprising,” said Dr. Rauh-Hain in a video interview. “I was pretty sure we’d see no difference” in outcomes between minimally invasive radical hysterectomies and the same surgery either done by laparoscope or robotically assisted.
Prior prospective comparisons of minimally invasive and open surgical methods for other cancer types, including endometrial, gastric, and ovarian, showed no differences in cancer recurrences and survival, which led to widening use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer despite no direct evidence supporting equivalence, Dr. Rauh-Hain noted. “We adopted it with no data. It made sense that cervical cancer would be the same as endometrial cancer,” he explained.
The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial ran at 33 centers in 12 countries, including six U.S. centers. The study randomized women during 2008-2017 who had stage 1A1, 1A2, or 1B1 cervical cancer to either MIS or open surgery for a radical hysterectomy. Each participating center had to submit to a trial review committee full case records for 10 patients and unedited surgical videos of two patients who had previously undergone a minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at the center to document local prowess with MIS.
Dr. Ramirez and his colleagues designed LACC to prove the noninferiority of MIS and calculated an expected enrollment of 740 patients based on statistical expectations, but the study stopped early after enrolling 631 patients because of the adverse outcomes identified in the MIS patients, with a median follow-up of 2.5 years instead of the planned follow-up of 4.5 years. The study reached the 4.5-year follow-up in about 39% of patients. Of the 312 patients randomized to undergo laparotomy, 88% actually underwent the surgery; of the 319 patients randomized to MIS, 91% received this surgery, with 16% of the MIS procedures done using robotic assistance.
The study’s primary endpoint was disease-free survival at 4.5 years, which occurred in 86% of the MIS patients and in 96.5% of the laparotomy patients, a difference that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of noninferiority for MIS, reported Dr. Ramirez, a professor of gynecologic oncology and director of Minimally Invasive Surgery Research and Education at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. In addition, several secondary analyses of the data all showed starkly superior outcomes in the laparotomy subgroup.
Disease-free survival among all patients regardless of follow-up duration occurred in 98% of laparotomy patients and 92% of MIS patients, which translated into a 3.74 hazard ratio (P = .002) for disease recurrence or death among the MIS patients when compared with laparotomy patients. The all-cause mortality rates were 1% in the laparotomy patients and 6% among the MIS patients, a hazard ratio of 6.00 (P = .004). The risk of local or regional recurrences was more than fourfold higher in the MIS patients. A blinded, central panel adjudicated all recurrences identified during the study.
The LACC results “should be discussed with patients scheduled to undergo radical hysterectomy” for cervical cancer, Dr. Ramirez concluded.
The observational data from the National Cancer Database used in the analysis led by Dr. Rauh-Hain came from 2,221 patients hospitalized and treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection at a U.S. center during 2010-2012 for either stage 1A2 or 1B1 cervical cancer. Among these patients, 47.5% underwent MIS, with 79% of those procedures done with robotic assistance, while the other 52.5% underwent open laparotomy, Dr. Rauh-Hain reported. Additional analysis of data from this database by the researchers showed that, although the first report of MIS for radical hysterectomy appeared in 1992, the approach remained largely unused in U.S. practice until 2007, when use of MIS began to sharply rise. By 2010, about a third of radical hysterectomies for cervical cancer involved MIS, and usage increased still further during 2011 and 2012 to produce a nearly 48% rate during the 3-year study period.
The primary endpoint of Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis was overall survival following propensity-score matching of the MIS and laparotomy patients using 13 demographic and clinical criteria. The analysis showed 4-year mortality rates of 5.8% among the laparotomy patients and 8.4% among the MIS patients, which calculated to a relatively increased mortality hazard from MIS of 48% (P = .02).
Dr. Rauh-Hain also reported results from an interrupted time series analysis using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute. This analysis compared annual 4-year relative survival rates among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found that, after survival rates showed a gradual, steady rise during the years culminating in 2006, once MIS began being more widely used in 2007 survival rates began to drop, with a statistically significant annualized decline of 1% through 2010.
Based on the results from both studies, “at MD Anderson we discuss the results with patients,” with the consequence that the percentage of patients treated with laparotomy is now increasing, Dr. Rauh-Hain said. The results from both studies “are concerning,” he explained.
SOURCE: Ramirez PT and Rauh-Hain JA. SGO 2018, Late-Breaking Abstracts 1 and 2.
The findings from these studies appear valid and should be discussed with patients.
The findings raise a major question: Why has minimally invasive surgery (MIS) led to worse survival rates than laparotomy? Several possible explanations can be hypothesized: The uterine manipulator used in MIS led to local spread of cancer cells; MIS involves a learning curve and initial attempts at MIS did not remove enough of the tumor; and MIS led to increased exposure of the peritoneal cavity to the cancer. The findings also raise another question: Why has MIS for cervical cancer performed less well than MIS for cancers from other organs, such as endometrial and prostate?
The overall survival results from the LACC trial calculate out to 4.75 added deaths per year for every 1,000 patients treated with MIS, compared with laparoscopy. But the National Inpatient Sample data suggest that MIS cuts mortality by about two deaths per year per 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy, and mortality data from a different analysis (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127[1]:11-7) suggest that MIS might prevent six deaths annually for every 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy. Overall, these three sets of findings suggest roughly comparable mortality outcomes from MIS and laparotomy, but with MIS having the bonus of fewer complications and less need for transfusions.
The cautions and concerns raised by the LACC trial and Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis of observational data cannot be easily dismissed. We need to figure out why the results from both studies show worse survival and recurrence rates with MIS, and we need to identify whether subgroups of patients exist who might clearly benefit from either the MIS or open-surgery approach.
Shitanshu Uppal, MD , is a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He made these comments as designated discussant for the two studies. He had no disclosures.
The findings from these studies appear valid and should be discussed with patients.
The findings raise a major question: Why has minimally invasive surgery (MIS) led to worse survival rates than laparotomy? Several possible explanations can be hypothesized: The uterine manipulator used in MIS led to local spread of cancer cells; MIS involves a learning curve and initial attempts at MIS did not remove enough of the tumor; and MIS led to increased exposure of the peritoneal cavity to the cancer. The findings also raise another question: Why has MIS for cervical cancer performed less well than MIS for cancers from other organs, such as endometrial and prostate?
The overall survival results from the LACC trial calculate out to 4.75 added deaths per year for every 1,000 patients treated with MIS, compared with laparoscopy. But the National Inpatient Sample data suggest that MIS cuts mortality by about two deaths per year per 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy, and mortality data from a different analysis (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127[1]:11-7) suggest that MIS might prevent six deaths annually for every 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy. Overall, these three sets of findings suggest roughly comparable mortality outcomes from MIS and laparotomy, but with MIS having the bonus of fewer complications and less need for transfusions.
The cautions and concerns raised by the LACC trial and Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis of observational data cannot be easily dismissed. We need to figure out why the results from both studies show worse survival and recurrence rates with MIS, and we need to identify whether subgroups of patients exist who might clearly benefit from either the MIS or open-surgery approach.
Shitanshu Uppal, MD , is a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He made these comments as designated discussant for the two studies. He had no disclosures.
The findings from these studies appear valid and should be discussed with patients.
The findings raise a major question: Why has minimally invasive surgery (MIS) led to worse survival rates than laparotomy? Several possible explanations can be hypothesized: The uterine manipulator used in MIS led to local spread of cancer cells; MIS involves a learning curve and initial attempts at MIS did not remove enough of the tumor; and MIS led to increased exposure of the peritoneal cavity to the cancer. The findings also raise another question: Why has MIS for cervical cancer performed less well than MIS for cancers from other organs, such as endometrial and prostate?
The overall survival results from the LACC trial calculate out to 4.75 added deaths per year for every 1,000 patients treated with MIS, compared with laparoscopy. But the National Inpatient Sample data suggest that MIS cuts mortality by about two deaths per year per 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy, and mortality data from a different analysis (Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Oct;127[1]:11-7) suggest that MIS might prevent six deaths annually for every 1,000 patients, compared with laparotomy. Overall, these three sets of findings suggest roughly comparable mortality outcomes from MIS and laparotomy, but with MIS having the bonus of fewer complications and less need for transfusions.
The cautions and concerns raised by the LACC trial and Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis of observational data cannot be easily dismissed. We need to figure out why the results from both studies show worse survival and recurrence rates with MIS, and we need to identify whether subgroups of patients exist who might clearly benefit from either the MIS or open-surgery approach.
Shitanshu Uppal, MD , is a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He made these comments as designated discussant for the two studies. He had no disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – Use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy to treat early-stage cervical cancer has grown over the past decade, and in current U.S. practice, roughly half of these cases are done with a minimally-invasive approach, with the rest done by conventional laparotomy. But the first data ever reported from a large, prospective trial that compared the efficacy of both methods for cervical cancer had the unexpected finding that disease-free survival following minimally invasive procedures significantly lagged behind radical hysterectomies done by open laparotomy, Pedro T. Ramirez, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.
Just after this report came results from a second study that used propensity score–adjusted observational data from the National Cancer Database and found significantly worse overall survival following minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, compared with laparotomy, said J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Both findings were “very surprising,” said Dr. Rauh-Hain in a video interview. “I was pretty sure we’d see no difference” in outcomes between minimally invasive radical hysterectomies and the same surgery either done by laparoscope or robotically assisted.
Prior prospective comparisons of minimally invasive and open surgical methods for other cancer types, including endometrial, gastric, and ovarian, showed no differences in cancer recurrences and survival, which led to widening use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer despite no direct evidence supporting equivalence, Dr. Rauh-Hain noted. “We adopted it with no data. It made sense that cervical cancer would be the same as endometrial cancer,” he explained.
The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial ran at 33 centers in 12 countries, including six U.S. centers. The study randomized women during 2008-2017 who had stage 1A1, 1A2, or 1B1 cervical cancer to either MIS or open surgery for a radical hysterectomy. Each participating center had to submit to a trial review committee full case records for 10 patients and unedited surgical videos of two patients who had previously undergone a minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at the center to document local prowess with MIS.
Dr. Ramirez and his colleagues designed LACC to prove the noninferiority of MIS and calculated an expected enrollment of 740 patients based on statistical expectations, but the study stopped early after enrolling 631 patients because of the adverse outcomes identified in the MIS patients, with a median follow-up of 2.5 years instead of the planned follow-up of 4.5 years. The study reached the 4.5-year follow-up in about 39% of patients. Of the 312 patients randomized to undergo laparotomy, 88% actually underwent the surgery; of the 319 patients randomized to MIS, 91% received this surgery, with 16% of the MIS procedures done using robotic assistance.
The study’s primary endpoint was disease-free survival at 4.5 years, which occurred in 86% of the MIS patients and in 96.5% of the laparotomy patients, a difference that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of noninferiority for MIS, reported Dr. Ramirez, a professor of gynecologic oncology and director of Minimally Invasive Surgery Research and Education at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. In addition, several secondary analyses of the data all showed starkly superior outcomes in the laparotomy subgroup.
Disease-free survival among all patients regardless of follow-up duration occurred in 98% of laparotomy patients and 92% of MIS patients, which translated into a 3.74 hazard ratio (P = .002) for disease recurrence or death among the MIS patients when compared with laparotomy patients. The all-cause mortality rates were 1% in the laparotomy patients and 6% among the MIS patients, a hazard ratio of 6.00 (P = .004). The risk of local or regional recurrences was more than fourfold higher in the MIS patients. A blinded, central panel adjudicated all recurrences identified during the study.
The LACC results “should be discussed with patients scheduled to undergo radical hysterectomy” for cervical cancer, Dr. Ramirez concluded.
The observational data from the National Cancer Database used in the analysis led by Dr. Rauh-Hain came from 2,221 patients hospitalized and treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection at a U.S. center during 2010-2012 for either stage 1A2 or 1B1 cervical cancer. Among these patients, 47.5% underwent MIS, with 79% of those procedures done with robotic assistance, while the other 52.5% underwent open laparotomy, Dr. Rauh-Hain reported. Additional analysis of data from this database by the researchers showed that, although the first report of MIS for radical hysterectomy appeared in 1992, the approach remained largely unused in U.S. practice until 2007, when use of MIS began to sharply rise. By 2010, about a third of radical hysterectomies for cervical cancer involved MIS, and usage increased still further during 2011 and 2012 to produce a nearly 48% rate during the 3-year study period.
The primary endpoint of Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis was overall survival following propensity-score matching of the MIS and laparotomy patients using 13 demographic and clinical criteria. The analysis showed 4-year mortality rates of 5.8% among the laparotomy patients and 8.4% among the MIS patients, which calculated to a relatively increased mortality hazard from MIS of 48% (P = .02).
Dr. Rauh-Hain also reported results from an interrupted time series analysis using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute. This analysis compared annual 4-year relative survival rates among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found that, after survival rates showed a gradual, steady rise during the years culminating in 2006, once MIS began being more widely used in 2007 survival rates began to drop, with a statistically significant annualized decline of 1% through 2010.
Based on the results from both studies, “at MD Anderson we discuss the results with patients,” with the consequence that the percentage of patients treated with laparotomy is now increasing, Dr. Rauh-Hain said. The results from both studies “are concerning,” he explained.
SOURCE: Ramirez PT and Rauh-Hain JA. SGO 2018, Late-Breaking Abstracts 1 and 2.
NEW ORLEANS – Use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy to treat early-stage cervical cancer has grown over the past decade, and in current U.S. practice, roughly half of these cases are done with a minimally-invasive approach, with the rest done by conventional laparotomy. But the first data ever reported from a large, prospective trial that compared the efficacy of both methods for cervical cancer had the unexpected finding that disease-free survival following minimally invasive procedures significantly lagged behind radical hysterectomies done by open laparotomy, Pedro T. Ramirez, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.
Just after this report came results from a second study that used propensity score–adjusted observational data from the National Cancer Database and found significantly worse overall survival following minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, compared with laparotomy, said J. Alejandro Rauh-Hain, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Both findings were “very surprising,” said Dr. Rauh-Hain in a video interview. “I was pretty sure we’d see no difference” in outcomes between minimally invasive radical hysterectomies and the same surgery either done by laparoscope or robotically assisted.
Prior prospective comparisons of minimally invasive and open surgical methods for other cancer types, including endometrial, gastric, and ovarian, showed no differences in cancer recurrences and survival, which led to widening use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer despite no direct evidence supporting equivalence, Dr. Rauh-Hain noted. “We adopted it with no data. It made sense that cervical cancer would be the same as endometrial cancer,” he explained.
The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial ran at 33 centers in 12 countries, including six U.S. centers. The study randomized women during 2008-2017 who had stage 1A1, 1A2, or 1B1 cervical cancer to either MIS or open surgery for a radical hysterectomy. Each participating center had to submit to a trial review committee full case records for 10 patients and unedited surgical videos of two patients who had previously undergone a minimally invasive radical hysterectomy at the center to document local prowess with MIS.
Dr. Ramirez and his colleagues designed LACC to prove the noninferiority of MIS and calculated an expected enrollment of 740 patients based on statistical expectations, but the study stopped early after enrolling 631 patients because of the adverse outcomes identified in the MIS patients, with a median follow-up of 2.5 years instead of the planned follow-up of 4.5 years. The study reached the 4.5-year follow-up in about 39% of patients. Of the 312 patients randomized to undergo laparotomy, 88% actually underwent the surgery; of the 319 patients randomized to MIS, 91% received this surgery, with 16% of the MIS procedures done using robotic assistance.
The study’s primary endpoint was disease-free survival at 4.5 years, which occurred in 86% of the MIS patients and in 96.5% of the laparotomy patients, a difference that failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of noninferiority for MIS, reported Dr. Ramirez, a professor of gynecologic oncology and director of Minimally Invasive Surgery Research and Education at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. In addition, several secondary analyses of the data all showed starkly superior outcomes in the laparotomy subgroup.
Disease-free survival among all patients regardless of follow-up duration occurred in 98% of laparotomy patients and 92% of MIS patients, which translated into a 3.74 hazard ratio (P = .002) for disease recurrence or death among the MIS patients when compared with laparotomy patients. The all-cause mortality rates were 1% in the laparotomy patients and 6% among the MIS patients, a hazard ratio of 6.00 (P = .004). The risk of local or regional recurrences was more than fourfold higher in the MIS patients. A blinded, central panel adjudicated all recurrences identified during the study.
The LACC results “should be discussed with patients scheduled to undergo radical hysterectomy” for cervical cancer, Dr. Ramirez concluded.
The observational data from the National Cancer Database used in the analysis led by Dr. Rauh-Hain came from 2,221 patients hospitalized and treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection at a U.S. center during 2010-2012 for either stage 1A2 or 1B1 cervical cancer. Among these patients, 47.5% underwent MIS, with 79% of those procedures done with robotic assistance, while the other 52.5% underwent open laparotomy, Dr. Rauh-Hain reported. Additional analysis of data from this database by the researchers showed that, although the first report of MIS for radical hysterectomy appeared in 1992, the approach remained largely unused in U.S. practice until 2007, when use of MIS began to sharply rise. By 2010, about a third of radical hysterectomies for cervical cancer involved MIS, and usage increased still further during 2011 and 2012 to produce a nearly 48% rate during the 3-year study period.
The primary endpoint of Dr. Rauh-Hain’s analysis was overall survival following propensity-score matching of the MIS and laparotomy patients using 13 demographic and clinical criteria. The analysis showed 4-year mortality rates of 5.8% among the laparotomy patients and 8.4% among the MIS patients, which calculated to a relatively increased mortality hazard from MIS of 48% (P = .02).
Dr. Rauh-Hain also reported results from an interrupted time series analysis using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute. This analysis compared annual 4-year relative survival rates among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found that, after survival rates showed a gradual, steady rise during the years culminating in 2006, once MIS began being more widely used in 2007 survival rates began to drop, with a statistically significant annualized decline of 1% through 2010.
Based on the results from both studies, “at MD Anderson we discuss the results with patients,” with the consequence that the percentage of patients treated with laparotomy is now increasing, Dr. Rauh-Hain said. The results from both studies “are concerning,” he explained.
SOURCE: Ramirez PT and Rauh-Hain JA. SGO 2018, Late-Breaking Abstracts 1 and 2.
REPORTING FROM SGO 2018
Key clinical point: Laparotomy produced better survival than did minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer.
Major finding: Disease-free survival after 4.5 years was 96.5% with laparotomy and 86.0% with minimally invasive surgery.
Study details: LACC was a multicenter, randomized trial with 631 patients. The observational study included 2,221 patients from the National Cancer Database during 2010-2012.
Disclosures: Dr. Ramirez and Dr. Rauh-Hain had no disclosures.
Source: Ramirez PT and Rauh-Hain JA. SGO 2018, Late-Breaking Abstracts 1 and 2.
Ari Green, MD
VIDEO: Poorer cardiometabolic health seen in men with low sperm count
CHICAGO – Low testosterone levels alone didn’t account for the finding, said Alberto Ferlin, MD, PhD, professor of reproductive endocrinology at the University of Brescia, Italy.
“So at the end, we showed that, independent of testosterone, low sperm count could be a marker of general male health, in particular for cardiovascular risk factors or metabolic derangement,” said Dr. Ferlin in an interview following a press conference at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The Italian study, which Dr. Ferlin said was the largest of its kind to date, studied 5,177 males who were part of an infertile couple, comparing men with low sperm count (less than 39 million sperm per ejaculate) with those with normal sperm count (at least 39 million sperm per ejaculate). In all, 2,583 of the participants had low sperm counts.
“Our main aim was to understand if semen analysis and, in general, the reproductive function of a man, could be a marker of his general cardiovascular and metabolic health,” said Dr. Ferlin.
Only men with a comprehensive work-up were included, so all participants had a medical history and physical exam, and semen analysis and culture. Additional components of the evaluation included blood lipid and glucose metabolism testing, reproductive hormone levels, ultrasound of the testes and, for men diagnosed with hypogonadism, bone densitometry.
The study, said Dr. Ferlin, found that among men with a low total sperm count, there was a high prevalence of hypogonadism, defined as both low testosterone and elevated levels of luteinizing hormone. Additionally, these men had a high prevalence of elevated luteinizing hormones with normal testosterone – “so-called subclinical hypogonadism,” said Dr. Ferlin.
In men with a low sperm count – defined as fewer than 39 million sperm per ejaculate – the prevalence of biochemical hypogonadism was about 45%, compared with just 6% in men with normal sperm counts, said Dr. Ferlin. Men with infertility had an odds ratio for hypogonadism of 12.2, said Dr. Ferlin (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.6).
Additionally, Dr. Ferlin reported that 35% of men with hypogonadism had osteopenia, and 17% met criteria for osteoporosis. The numbers surprised the investigators. “These are very young men – about 30 years old,” said Dr. Ferlin.
Dr. Ferlin and his collaborators also looked at the subset of eugonadal men in the study, comparing those with normal sperm counts (n = 2,431) to those who had low sperm counts, (n = 1,423). They found that men with low sperm counts had significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) levels (P less than .001 for all).
High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, testosterone, and follicle stimulating hormone levels were also significantly lower for men with low sperm count. “Men with oligozoospermia … have an increased risk of metabolic derangement – so, altered lipid profile with higher LDL cholesterol and lower HDL [cholesterol], higher triglycerides, higher insulin resistance,” said Dr. Ferlin.
The findings have implications for reproductive endocrinologists caring for couples with infertility, said Dr. Ferlin. “Infertile men should be studied comprehensively, and the diagnosis cannot be limited to just one semen analysis,” given the study’s findings, he said. “All these men should be counseled, should be treated … for worsening of these cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors that are present in such frequency in oligozoospermic men.”
Dr. Ferlin reported no conflicts of interest.
CHICAGO – Low testosterone levels alone didn’t account for the finding, said Alberto Ferlin, MD, PhD, professor of reproductive endocrinology at the University of Brescia, Italy.
“So at the end, we showed that, independent of testosterone, low sperm count could be a marker of general male health, in particular for cardiovascular risk factors or metabolic derangement,” said Dr. Ferlin in an interview following a press conference at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The Italian study, which Dr. Ferlin said was the largest of its kind to date, studied 5,177 males who were part of an infertile couple, comparing men with low sperm count (less than 39 million sperm per ejaculate) with those with normal sperm count (at least 39 million sperm per ejaculate). In all, 2,583 of the participants had low sperm counts.
“Our main aim was to understand if semen analysis and, in general, the reproductive function of a man, could be a marker of his general cardiovascular and metabolic health,” said Dr. Ferlin.
Only men with a comprehensive work-up were included, so all participants had a medical history and physical exam, and semen analysis and culture. Additional components of the evaluation included blood lipid and glucose metabolism testing, reproductive hormone levels, ultrasound of the testes and, for men diagnosed with hypogonadism, bone densitometry.
The study, said Dr. Ferlin, found that among men with a low total sperm count, there was a high prevalence of hypogonadism, defined as both low testosterone and elevated levels of luteinizing hormone. Additionally, these men had a high prevalence of elevated luteinizing hormones with normal testosterone – “so-called subclinical hypogonadism,” said Dr. Ferlin.
In men with a low sperm count – defined as fewer than 39 million sperm per ejaculate – the prevalence of biochemical hypogonadism was about 45%, compared with just 6% in men with normal sperm counts, said Dr. Ferlin. Men with infertility had an odds ratio for hypogonadism of 12.2, said Dr. Ferlin (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.6).
Additionally, Dr. Ferlin reported that 35% of men with hypogonadism had osteopenia, and 17% met criteria for osteoporosis. The numbers surprised the investigators. “These are very young men – about 30 years old,” said Dr. Ferlin.
Dr. Ferlin and his collaborators also looked at the subset of eugonadal men in the study, comparing those with normal sperm counts (n = 2,431) to those who had low sperm counts, (n = 1,423). They found that men with low sperm counts had significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) levels (P less than .001 for all).
High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, testosterone, and follicle stimulating hormone levels were also significantly lower for men with low sperm count. “Men with oligozoospermia … have an increased risk of metabolic derangement – so, altered lipid profile with higher LDL cholesterol and lower HDL [cholesterol], higher triglycerides, higher insulin resistance,” said Dr. Ferlin.
The findings have implications for reproductive endocrinologists caring for couples with infertility, said Dr. Ferlin. “Infertile men should be studied comprehensively, and the diagnosis cannot be limited to just one semen analysis,” given the study’s findings, he said. “All these men should be counseled, should be treated … for worsening of these cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors that are present in such frequency in oligozoospermic men.”
Dr. Ferlin reported no conflicts of interest.
CHICAGO – Low testosterone levels alone didn’t account for the finding, said Alberto Ferlin, MD, PhD, professor of reproductive endocrinology at the University of Brescia, Italy.
“So at the end, we showed that, independent of testosterone, low sperm count could be a marker of general male health, in particular for cardiovascular risk factors or metabolic derangement,” said Dr. Ferlin in an interview following a press conference at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The Italian study, which Dr. Ferlin said was the largest of its kind to date, studied 5,177 males who were part of an infertile couple, comparing men with low sperm count (less than 39 million sperm per ejaculate) with those with normal sperm count (at least 39 million sperm per ejaculate). In all, 2,583 of the participants had low sperm counts.
“Our main aim was to understand if semen analysis and, in general, the reproductive function of a man, could be a marker of his general cardiovascular and metabolic health,” said Dr. Ferlin.
Only men with a comprehensive work-up were included, so all participants had a medical history and physical exam, and semen analysis and culture. Additional components of the evaluation included blood lipid and glucose metabolism testing, reproductive hormone levels, ultrasound of the testes and, for men diagnosed with hypogonadism, bone densitometry.
The study, said Dr. Ferlin, found that among men with a low total sperm count, there was a high prevalence of hypogonadism, defined as both low testosterone and elevated levels of luteinizing hormone. Additionally, these men had a high prevalence of elevated luteinizing hormones with normal testosterone – “so-called subclinical hypogonadism,” said Dr. Ferlin.
In men with a low sperm count – defined as fewer than 39 million sperm per ejaculate – the prevalence of biochemical hypogonadism was about 45%, compared with just 6% in men with normal sperm counts, said Dr. Ferlin. Men with infertility had an odds ratio for hypogonadism of 12.2, said Dr. Ferlin (95% confidence interval, 10.2-14.6).
Additionally, Dr. Ferlin reported that 35% of men with hypogonadism had osteopenia, and 17% met criteria for osteoporosis. The numbers surprised the investigators. “These are very young men – about 30 years old,” said Dr. Ferlin.
Dr. Ferlin and his collaborators also looked at the subset of eugonadal men in the study, comparing those with normal sperm counts (n = 2,431) to those who had low sperm counts, (n = 1,423). They found that men with low sperm counts had significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) levels (P less than .001 for all).
High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, testosterone, and follicle stimulating hormone levels were also significantly lower for men with low sperm count. “Men with oligozoospermia … have an increased risk of metabolic derangement – so, altered lipid profile with higher LDL cholesterol and lower HDL [cholesterol], higher triglycerides, higher insulin resistance,” said Dr. Ferlin.
The findings have implications for reproductive endocrinologists caring for couples with infertility, said Dr. Ferlin. “Infertile men should be studied comprehensively, and the diagnosis cannot be limited to just one semen analysis,” given the study’s findings, he said. “All these men should be counseled, should be treated … for worsening of these cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors that are present in such frequency in oligozoospermic men.”
Dr. Ferlin reported no conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM ENDO 2018
Depression and substance abuse
VIDEO: Biomarker accurately predicted primary nonfunction after liver transplant
, researchers reported in Gastroenterology.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Glycomic alterations of immunoglobulin G “represent inflammatory disturbances in the liver that [mean it] will fail after transplantation,” wrote Xavier Verhelst, MD, of Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, and his associates. The new glycomarker “could be a tool to safely select high-risk organs for liver transplantation that otherwise would be discarded from the donor pool based on a conventional clinical assessment,” and also could help prevent engraftment failures. “To our knowledge, not a single biomarker has demonstrated the same accuracy today,” they wrote in the April issue of Gastroenterology.
Chronic shortages of donor livers contribute to morbidity and death worldwide. However, relaxing donor criteria is controversial because of the increased risk of primary nonfunction, which affects some 2%-10% of liver transplantation patients, and early allograft dysfunction, which is even more common. Although no reliable scoring systems or biomarkers have been able to predict these outcomes prior to transplantation, clinical glycomics of serum has proven useful for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and for distinguishing hepatic steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. “Perfusate biomarkers are an attractive alternative [to] liver biopsy or serum markers, because perfusate is believed to represent the condition of the entire liver parenchyma and is easy to collect in large volumes,” the researchers wrote.
Accordingly, they studied 66 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a single center in Belgium and a separate validation cohort of 56 transplantation recipients from two centers. The most common reason for liver transplantation was decompensated cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism, followed by chronic hepatitis C or B virus infection, acute liver failure, and polycystic liver disease. Donor grafts were transported using cold static storage (21° C), and hepatic veins were flushed to collect perfusate before transplantation. Protein-linked N-glycans was isolated from these perfusate samples and analyzed with a multicapillary electrophoresis-based ABI3130 sequencer.
The four patients in the primary study cohort who developed primary nonfunction resembled the others in terms of all clinical and demographic parameters except that they had a markedly increased concentration (P less than .0001) of a single-glycan, agalacto core-alpha-1,6-fucosylated biantennary glycan, dubbed NGA2F. The single patient in the validation cohort who developed primary nonfunction also had a significantly increased concentration of NGA2F (P = .037). There were no false positives in either cohort, and a 13% cutoff for perfusate NGA2F level identified primary nonfunction with 100% accuracy, the researchers said. In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only NGA2F was prognostic for developing primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
The researchers found no specific glycomic signature for early allograft dysfunction, perhaps because it is more complex and multifactorial, they wrote. Although electrophoresis testing took 48 hours, work is underway to shorten this to a “clinically acceptable time frame,” they added. They recommended multicenter studies to validate their findings.
Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
, researchers reported in Gastroenterology.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Glycomic alterations of immunoglobulin G “represent inflammatory disturbances in the liver that [mean it] will fail after transplantation,” wrote Xavier Verhelst, MD, of Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, and his associates. The new glycomarker “could be a tool to safely select high-risk organs for liver transplantation that otherwise would be discarded from the donor pool based on a conventional clinical assessment,” and also could help prevent engraftment failures. “To our knowledge, not a single biomarker has demonstrated the same accuracy today,” they wrote in the April issue of Gastroenterology.
Chronic shortages of donor livers contribute to morbidity and death worldwide. However, relaxing donor criteria is controversial because of the increased risk of primary nonfunction, which affects some 2%-10% of liver transplantation patients, and early allograft dysfunction, which is even more common. Although no reliable scoring systems or biomarkers have been able to predict these outcomes prior to transplantation, clinical glycomics of serum has proven useful for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and for distinguishing hepatic steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. “Perfusate biomarkers are an attractive alternative [to] liver biopsy or serum markers, because perfusate is believed to represent the condition of the entire liver parenchyma and is easy to collect in large volumes,” the researchers wrote.
Accordingly, they studied 66 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a single center in Belgium and a separate validation cohort of 56 transplantation recipients from two centers. The most common reason for liver transplantation was decompensated cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism, followed by chronic hepatitis C or B virus infection, acute liver failure, and polycystic liver disease. Donor grafts were transported using cold static storage (21° C), and hepatic veins were flushed to collect perfusate before transplantation. Protein-linked N-glycans was isolated from these perfusate samples and analyzed with a multicapillary electrophoresis-based ABI3130 sequencer.
The four patients in the primary study cohort who developed primary nonfunction resembled the others in terms of all clinical and demographic parameters except that they had a markedly increased concentration (P less than .0001) of a single-glycan, agalacto core-alpha-1,6-fucosylated biantennary glycan, dubbed NGA2F. The single patient in the validation cohort who developed primary nonfunction also had a significantly increased concentration of NGA2F (P = .037). There were no false positives in either cohort, and a 13% cutoff for perfusate NGA2F level identified primary nonfunction with 100% accuracy, the researchers said. In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only NGA2F was prognostic for developing primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
The researchers found no specific glycomic signature for early allograft dysfunction, perhaps because it is more complex and multifactorial, they wrote. Although electrophoresis testing took 48 hours, work is underway to shorten this to a “clinically acceptable time frame,” they added. They recommended multicenter studies to validate their findings.
Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
, researchers reported in Gastroenterology.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Glycomic alterations of immunoglobulin G “represent inflammatory disturbances in the liver that [mean it] will fail after transplantation,” wrote Xavier Verhelst, MD, of Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, and his associates. The new glycomarker “could be a tool to safely select high-risk organs for liver transplantation that otherwise would be discarded from the donor pool based on a conventional clinical assessment,” and also could help prevent engraftment failures. “To our knowledge, not a single biomarker has demonstrated the same accuracy today,” they wrote in the April issue of Gastroenterology.
Chronic shortages of donor livers contribute to morbidity and death worldwide. However, relaxing donor criteria is controversial because of the increased risk of primary nonfunction, which affects some 2%-10% of liver transplantation patients, and early allograft dysfunction, which is even more common. Although no reliable scoring systems or biomarkers have been able to predict these outcomes prior to transplantation, clinical glycomics of serum has proven useful for diagnosing hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and for distinguishing hepatic steatosis from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. “Perfusate biomarkers are an attractive alternative [to] liver biopsy or serum markers, because perfusate is believed to represent the condition of the entire liver parenchyma and is easy to collect in large volumes,” the researchers wrote.
Accordingly, they studied 66 patients who underwent liver transplantation at a single center in Belgium and a separate validation cohort of 56 transplantation recipients from two centers. The most common reason for liver transplantation was decompensated cirrhosis secondary to alcoholism, followed by chronic hepatitis C or B virus infection, acute liver failure, and polycystic liver disease. Donor grafts were transported using cold static storage (21° C), and hepatic veins were flushed to collect perfusate before transplantation. Protein-linked N-glycans was isolated from these perfusate samples and analyzed with a multicapillary electrophoresis-based ABI3130 sequencer.
The four patients in the primary study cohort who developed primary nonfunction resembled the others in terms of all clinical and demographic parameters except that they had a markedly increased concentration (P less than .0001) of a single-glycan, agalacto core-alpha-1,6-fucosylated biantennary glycan, dubbed NGA2F. The single patient in the validation cohort who developed primary nonfunction also had a significantly increased concentration of NGA2F (P = .037). There were no false positives in either cohort, and a 13% cutoff for perfusate NGA2F level identified primary nonfunction with 100% accuracy, the researchers said. In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only NGA2F was prognostic for developing primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
The researchers found no specific glycomic signature for early allograft dysfunction, perhaps because it is more complex and multifactorial, they wrote. Although electrophoresis testing took 48 hours, work is underway to shorten this to a “clinically acceptable time frame,” they added. They recommended multicenter studies to validate their findings.
Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: A glycomarker in donor liver perfusate was 100% accurate at predicting primary nonfunction after liver transplantation.
Major finding: In a multivariable model of donor risk index and perfusate markers, only the single-glycan, NGA2F was a significant predictor of primary nonfunction (P less than .0001).
Data source: A dual-center, prospective study of 66 liver transplant patients and a 55-member validation cohort.
Disclosures: Funders included the Research Fund – Flanders and Ghent University. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
Source: Verhelst X et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Jan 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.027.
VIDEO: Pioglitazone benefited NASH patients with and without T2DM
Pioglitazone therapy given for 18 months benefited patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) similarly regardless of whether they had type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes, according to the results of a randomized prospective trial.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
The primary outcome, at least a 2-point reduction in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score compared with placebo, without worsening fibrosis, was met by 48% of NASH patients with T2DM and by 46% of those with prediabetes, reported Fernando Bril, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and his associates. The report was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
NASH resolved completely in 44% with T2DM and 26% of patients without it, respectively, perhaps indicating that pioglitazone acts slightly differently when patients with NASH have T2DM, according to the investigators. “Although the effects on fibrosis appear to be similar in both groups, pioglitazone may contribute to halting [its] rapid progression [in T2DM],” they wrote. “These differences will deserve further exploration in larger clinical trials.”
The trial (NCT00994682) enrolled 101 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH, of whom 52 had T2DM and 49 had prediabetes based on clinical history, baseline fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and an oral glucose tolerance test, as per American Diabetes Association guidelines. After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pioglitazone (45 mg per day) or placebo for 18 months. All patients received lifestyle counseling and a hypocaloric (500-kcal reduced) diet.
Compared with placebo, pioglitazone improved most secondary outcomes similarly regardless of whether patients were T2DM or prediabetes. The two exceptions were fibrosis and insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue. Patients with T2DM only experienced improved fibrosis in the setting of pioglitazone therapy (P = .035 vs. baseline). In prediabetic patients, fibrosis lessened moderately over time, regardless of whether they received pioglitazone or placebo. Insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue improved much more markedly with treatment in patients with T2DM (P less than .001 vs. baseline) than in those with prediabetes (P = .002 for T2DM vs. prediabetes).
Compared with placebo, pioglitazone improved hepatic and skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity similarly, regardless of diabetes status. Likewise, intrahepatic triglyceride content, as measured by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, fell by 11% in pioglitazone recipients with T2DM and by 9% of those with prediabetes, a nonsignificant difference. Pioglitazone also led to a statistically similar decrease in plasma alanine aminotransferase level regardless of whether patients had T2DM (50 U/L) or were prediabetic (36 U/L).
This trial’s key takeaway is that pioglitazone improves liver histology in NASH whether or not patients are diabetic, said the researchers. “We believed that it was essential to compare its efficacy in patients with [and] without T2DM because of the vast number of patients with prediabetes and NASH and given the significant metabolic and cardioprotective effects of pioglitazone among patients without T2DM,” they wrote. The natural history of NASH is worse in the presence of T2DM, which might explain pioglitazone’s superior effects on fibrosis and insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue in this population, they added.
The Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the American Diabetes Association, and the Veteran’s Affairs Merit Award supported the work. Senior author Kenneth Cusi, MD, disclosed nonfinancial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, grants from Novartis and Janssen Research and Development, and consulting relationships with Eli Lilly, Tobira Therapeutics, and Pfizer. The other authors had no conflicts.
Source: Bril F, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Feb 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.001.
Pioglitazone therapy given for 18 months benefited patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) similarly regardless of whether they had type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes, according to the results of a randomized prospective trial.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
The primary outcome, at least a 2-point reduction in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score compared with placebo, without worsening fibrosis, was met by 48% of NASH patients with T2DM and by 46% of those with prediabetes, reported Fernando Bril, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and his associates. The report was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
NASH resolved completely in 44% with T2DM and 26% of patients without it, respectively, perhaps indicating that pioglitazone acts slightly differently when patients with NASH have T2DM, according to the investigators. “Although the effects on fibrosis appear to be similar in both groups, pioglitazone may contribute to halting [its] rapid progression [in T2DM],” they wrote. “These differences will deserve further exploration in larger clinical trials.”
The trial (NCT00994682) enrolled 101 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH, of whom 52 had T2DM and 49 had prediabetes based on clinical history, baseline fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and an oral glucose tolerance test, as per American Diabetes Association guidelines. After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pioglitazone (45 mg per day) or placebo for 18 months. All patients received lifestyle counseling and a hypocaloric (500-kcal reduced) diet.
Compared with placebo, pioglitazone improved most secondary outcomes similarly regardless of whether patients were T2DM or prediabetes. The two exceptions were fibrosis and insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue. Patients with T2DM only experienced improved fibrosis in the setting of pioglitazone therapy (P = .035 vs. baseline). In prediabetic patients, fibrosis lessened moderately over time, regardless of whether they received pioglitazone or placebo. Insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue improved much more markedly with treatment in patients with T2DM (P less than .001 vs. baseline) than in those with prediabetes (P = .002 for T2DM vs. prediabetes).
Compared with placebo, pioglitazone improved hepatic and skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity similarly, regardless of diabetes status. Likewise, intrahepatic triglyceride content, as measured by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, fell by 11% in pioglitazone recipients with T2DM and by 9% of those with prediabetes, a nonsignificant difference. Pioglitazone also led to a statistically similar decrease in plasma alanine aminotransferase level regardless of whether patients had T2DM (50 U/L) or were prediabetic (36 U/L).
This trial’s key takeaway is that pioglitazone improves liver histology in NASH whether or not patients are diabetic, said the researchers. “We believed that it was essential to compare its efficacy in patients with [and] without T2DM because of the vast number of patients with prediabetes and NASH and given the significant metabolic and cardioprotective effects of pioglitazone among patients without T2DM,” they wrote. The natural history of NASH is worse in the presence of T2DM, which might explain pioglitazone’s superior effects on fibrosis and insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue in this population, they added.
The Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the American Diabetes Association, and the Veteran’s Affairs Merit Award supported the work. Senior author Kenneth Cusi, MD, disclosed nonfinancial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, grants from Novartis and Janssen Research and Development, and consulting relationships with Eli Lilly, Tobira Therapeutics, and Pfizer. The other authors had no conflicts.
Source: Bril F, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Feb 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.001.
Pioglitazone therapy given for 18 months benefited patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) similarly regardless of whether they had type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes, according to the results of a randomized prospective trial.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
The primary outcome, at least a 2-point reduction in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score compared with placebo, without worsening fibrosis, was met by 48% of NASH patients with T2DM and by 46% of those with prediabetes, reported Fernando Bril, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and his associates. The report was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
NASH resolved completely in 44% with T2DM and 26% of patients without it, respectively, perhaps indicating that pioglitazone acts slightly differently when patients with NASH have T2DM, according to the investigators. “Although the effects on fibrosis appear to be similar in both groups, pioglitazone may contribute to halting [its] rapid progression [in T2DM],” they wrote. “These differences will deserve further exploration in larger clinical trials.”
The trial (NCT00994682) enrolled 101 patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH, of whom 52 had T2DM and 49 had prediabetes based on clinical history, baseline fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and an oral glucose tolerance test, as per American Diabetes Association guidelines. After a 4-week run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pioglitazone (45 mg per day) or placebo for 18 months. All patients received lifestyle counseling and a hypocaloric (500-kcal reduced) diet.
Compared with placebo, pioglitazone improved most secondary outcomes similarly regardless of whether patients were T2DM or prediabetes. The two exceptions were fibrosis and insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue. Patients with T2DM only experienced improved fibrosis in the setting of pioglitazone therapy (P = .035 vs. baseline). In prediabetic patients, fibrosis lessened moderately over time, regardless of whether they received pioglitazone or placebo. Insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue improved much more markedly with treatment in patients with T2DM (P less than .001 vs. baseline) than in those with prediabetes (P = .002 for T2DM vs. prediabetes).
Compared with placebo, pioglitazone improved hepatic and skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity similarly, regardless of diabetes status. Likewise, intrahepatic triglyceride content, as measured by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, fell by 11% in pioglitazone recipients with T2DM and by 9% of those with prediabetes, a nonsignificant difference. Pioglitazone also led to a statistically similar decrease in plasma alanine aminotransferase level regardless of whether patients had T2DM (50 U/L) or were prediabetic (36 U/L).
This trial’s key takeaway is that pioglitazone improves liver histology in NASH whether or not patients are diabetic, said the researchers. “We believed that it was essential to compare its efficacy in patients with [and] without T2DM because of the vast number of patients with prediabetes and NASH and given the significant metabolic and cardioprotective effects of pioglitazone among patients without T2DM,” they wrote. The natural history of NASH is worse in the presence of T2DM, which might explain pioglitazone’s superior effects on fibrosis and insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue in this population, they added.
The Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the American Diabetes Association, and the Veteran’s Affairs Merit Award supported the work. Senior author Kenneth Cusi, MD, disclosed nonfinancial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, grants from Novartis and Janssen Research and Development, and consulting relationships with Eli Lilly, Tobira Therapeutics, and Pfizer. The other authors had no conflicts.
Source: Bril F, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Feb 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.001.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point: Pioglitazone improved liver measures in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis whether or not they were diabetic.
Major finding: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score fell by at least 2 points, without worsening fibrosis, in 48% of T2DM patients and 46% of patients with prediabetes.
Data source: A prospective study of 101 patients with NASH, of whom 52 had type 2 diabetes and 49 had prediabetes.
Disclosures: The Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the American Diabetes Association, and the Veteran’s Affairs Merit Award supported the work. Senior author Kenneth Cusi, MD, disclosed nonfinancial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, grants from Novartis and Janssen Research and Development, and consulting relationships with Eli Lilly and Company, Tobira Therapeutics, and Pfizer. The other authors had no conflicts.
Source: Bril F et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Feb 24. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.001.
VIDEO: Ultrasound with Doppler
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
VIDEO: Initial Bedside Ultrasound of Pulsatile Hand Mass
Cenk Ayata, MD, & Messoud Ashina, MD
