Closed-loop insulin control for T2DM is feasible in hospital setting

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:18

 

New research suggests it’s feasible for hospitals to use an automated closed-loop insulin delivery system – free of prandial boluses and carbohydrate counts – to improve glucose control in noncritical patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

The findings, released at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and via simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine, don’t examine cost or clinical outcomes. However, “our results suggest this new technology might be another approach to manage in-patient hypoglycemia in a safe and effective way, lead author Lia Bally, MD, PhD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and clinical nutrition, Bern (Switzerland ) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

For the open-label trial, the researchers recruited 136 adults with T2DM under noncritical care at two hospitals (one in the England and the other in Switzerland). Some patients had undergone surgery, Dr. Bally said, and some others were being treated for systemic infections. Comorbidities were significantly more severe in the closed-loop group, and 43% had sepsis.

All of the subjects required subcutaneous insulin therapy.

From 2016 to 2017, patients were randomly assigned to receive normal subcutaneous insulin therapy (n = 70) or closed-loop insulin delivery (n = 66).

It took about 15 minutes to perform the procedure to implement the closed-loop insulin delivery system, Dr. Bally said. It featured a subcutaneous cannula inserted into the abdomen, a continuous glucose monitor (a device also used in the control group), and a trial insulin pump.

This was not a hybrid system, and it did not include prandial insulin boluses or input of the timing and carbohydrate content of meals. One reason behind the choice to adopt a fully automated system was to relieve the burden on both health care professionals and patients, coauthor Hood Thabit, PhD, of Wellcome Trust–MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, the Manchester Academic Health Science Center, and University of Manchester, said in an interview.

For up to 15 days or until discharge, researchers tracked how much of the time sensor glucose measurements were in a target range of 100 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL.

In the closed-loop group, glucose measurements were in the target range 66 mg/dL ± 17% of the time compared to 42 mg/dL ± 17% in the control group, a difference of 24 mg/dL ± 3% (95% confidence interval, 19-30; P less than .001).

For the closed-loop group, the average glucose level was 154 mg/dL, and it was 188 mg/dL in the control group (P less than .001).

The researchers didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups in duration of hypoglycemia or amount of insulin delivered.

None of the patients suffered from severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia.

There were 18 incidents of clinically significant hyperglycemia events (capillary glucose levels of more than 360 mg/dL) in the closed-loop group, compared with 41 such events in the control group. (P = .03)

Three patients in each group had adverse trial-related device effects.

Of 62 patients in the closed-loop group who completed the trial, 87% reported being pleased by their glucose levels, and all but one reported being happy to have their levels monitored automatically. All 62 patients said they’d recommend the system to others.

Going forward, the researchers hope to launch a multicenter trial that will examine clinical outcomes such as postoperative complications, infections, mortality, and glucose control after hospital discharge, according to Dr. Bally.

The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, the JDRF, the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Center, and a Wellcome Strategic Award. Abbott Diabetes Care supplied equipment and guidance regarding connectivity, and representatives reviewed the manuscript before submission.

Dr. Bally reported funding from the University Hospital Bern, University of Bern and the Swiss Diabetes Foundation. Dr. Thabit reported no disclosures. Other authors report no disclosures or various disclosures.

SOURCE: Bally L et al. ADA 2018 Abstract 350-OR. Published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. June 25, 2018

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

New research suggests it’s feasible for hospitals to use an automated closed-loop insulin delivery system – free of prandial boluses and carbohydrate counts – to improve glucose control in noncritical patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

The findings, released at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and via simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine, don’t examine cost or clinical outcomes. However, “our results suggest this new technology might be another approach to manage in-patient hypoglycemia in a safe and effective way, lead author Lia Bally, MD, PhD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and clinical nutrition, Bern (Switzerland ) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

For the open-label trial, the researchers recruited 136 adults with T2DM under noncritical care at two hospitals (one in the England and the other in Switzerland). Some patients had undergone surgery, Dr. Bally said, and some others were being treated for systemic infections. Comorbidities were significantly more severe in the closed-loop group, and 43% had sepsis.

All of the subjects required subcutaneous insulin therapy.

From 2016 to 2017, patients were randomly assigned to receive normal subcutaneous insulin therapy (n = 70) or closed-loop insulin delivery (n = 66).

It took about 15 minutes to perform the procedure to implement the closed-loop insulin delivery system, Dr. Bally said. It featured a subcutaneous cannula inserted into the abdomen, a continuous glucose monitor (a device also used in the control group), and a trial insulin pump.

This was not a hybrid system, and it did not include prandial insulin boluses or input of the timing and carbohydrate content of meals. One reason behind the choice to adopt a fully automated system was to relieve the burden on both health care professionals and patients, coauthor Hood Thabit, PhD, of Wellcome Trust–MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, the Manchester Academic Health Science Center, and University of Manchester, said in an interview.

For up to 15 days or until discharge, researchers tracked how much of the time sensor glucose measurements were in a target range of 100 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL.

In the closed-loop group, glucose measurements were in the target range 66 mg/dL ± 17% of the time compared to 42 mg/dL ± 17% in the control group, a difference of 24 mg/dL ± 3% (95% confidence interval, 19-30; P less than .001).

For the closed-loop group, the average glucose level was 154 mg/dL, and it was 188 mg/dL in the control group (P less than .001).

The researchers didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups in duration of hypoglycemia or amount of insulin delivered.

None of the patients suffered from severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia.

There were 18 incidents of clinically significant hyperglycemia events (capillary glucose levels of more than 360 mg/dL) in the closed-loop group, compared with 41 such events in the control group. (P = .03)

Three patients in each group had adverse trial-related device effects.

Of 62 patients in the closed-loop group who completed the trial, 87% reported being pleased by their glucose levels, and all but one reported being happy to have their levels monitored automatically. All 62 patients said they’d recommend the system to others.

Going forward, the researchers hope to launch a multicenter trial that will examine clinical outcomes such as postoperative complications, infections, mortality, and glucose control after hospital discharge, according to Dr. Bally.

The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, the JDRF, the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Center, and a Wellcome Strategic Award. Abbott Diabetes Care supplied equipment and guidance regarding connectivity, and representatives reviewed the manuscript before submission.

Dr. Bally reported funding from the University Hospital Bern, University of Bern and the Swiss Diabetes Foundation. Dr. Thabit reported no disclosures. Other authors report no disclosures or various disclosures.

SOURCE: Bally L et al. ADA 2018 Abstract 350-OR. Published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. June 25, 2018

 

New research suggests it’s feasible for hospitals to use an automated closed-loop insulin delivery system – free of prandial boluses and carbohydrate counts – to improve glucose control in noncritical patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

The findings, released at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and via simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine, don’t examine cost or clinical outcomes. However, “our results suggest this new technology might be another approach to manage in-patient hypoglycemia in a safe and effective way, lead author Lia Bally, MD, PhD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and clinical nutrition, Bern (Switzerland ) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel

For the open-label trial, the researchers recruited 136 adults with T2DM under noncritical care at two hospitals (one in the England and the other in Switzerland). Some patients had undergone surgery, Dr. Bally said, and some others were being treated for systemic infections. Comorbidities were significantly more severe in the closed-loop group, and 43% had sepsis.

All of the subjects required subcutaneous insulin therapy.

From 2016 to 2017, patients were randomly assigned to receive normal subcutaneous insulin therapy (n = 70) or closed-loop insulin delivery (n = 66).

It took about 15 minutes to perform the procedure to implement the closed-loop insulin delivery system, Dr. Bally said. It featured a subcutaneous cannula inserted into the abdomen, a continuous glucose monitor (a device also used in the control group), and a trial insulin pump.

This was not a hybrid system, and it did not include prandial insulin boluses or input of the timing and carbohydrate content of meals. One reason behind the choice to adopt a fully automated system was to relieve the burden on both health care professionals and patients, coauthor Hood Thabit, PhD, of Wellcome Trust–MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, the Manchester Academic Health Science Center, and University of Manchester, said in an interview.

For up to 15 days or until discharge, researchers tracked how much of the time sensor glucose measurements were in a target range of 100 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL.

In the closed-loop group, glucose measurements were in the target range 66 mg/dL ± 17% of the time compared to 42 mg/dL ± 17% in the control group, a difference of 24 mg/dL ± 3% (95% confidence interval, 19-30; P less than .001).

For the closed-loop group, the average glucose level was 154 mg/dL, and it was 188 mg/dL in the control group (P less than .001).

The researchers didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups in duration of hypoglycemia or amount of insulin delivered.

None of the patients suffered from severe hypoglycemia or clinically significant hyperglycemia with ketonemia.

There were 18 incidents of clinically significant hyperglycemia events (capillary glucose levels of more than 360 mg/dL) in the closed-loop group, compared with 41 such events in the control group. (P = .03)

Three patients in each group had adverse trial-related device effects.

Of 62 patients in the closed-loop group who completed the trial, 87% reported being pleased by their glucose levels, and all but one reported being happy to have their levels monitored automatically. All 62 patients said they’d recommend the system to others.

Going forward, the researchers hope to launch a multicenter trial that will examine clinical outcomes such as postoperative complications, infections, mortality, and glucose control after hospital discharge, according to Dr. Bally.

The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, the JDRF, the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Center, and a Wellcome Strategic Award. Abbott Diabetes Care supplied equipment and guidance regarding connectivity, and representatives reviewed the manuscript before submission.

Dr. Bally reported funding from the University Hospital Bern, University of Bern and the Swiss Diabetes Foundation. Dr. Thabit reported no disclosures. Other authors report no disclosures or various disclosures.

SOURCE: Bally L et al. ADA 2018 Abstract 350-OR. Published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine. June 25, 2018

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ADA 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Use of an automated closed-loop insulin delivery system may be feasible in the noncritical hospital setting.

Major finding: In the closed-loop group, glucose measurements were in the target range 66 mg/dL ± 17% of the time compared with 42 mg/dL ± 17% in the control group, a difference of 24 mg/dL ± 3% (95% CI, 19-30; P less than .001).

Study details: Randomized, open-label, two-center trial of 136 inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus assigned to either standard subcutaneous insulin therapy or closed-loop insulin delivery for 15 days or until discharge.

Disclosures: The study was supported by Diabetes UK, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, the JDRF, the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Center, and a Wellcome Strategic Award. Abbott Diabetes Care supplied equipment and guidance regarding connectivity, and representatives reviewed the manuscript before submission. The researchers reported no disclosures or various disclosures.

Source: Bally L et al. ADA 2018 Abstract 350-OR.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Deborah Friedman, MD, MPH

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 08/06/2021 - 16:37

Publications
Topics
Sections

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:15
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Maria Eduarda Nobre, MD, PhD

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 06/17/2019 - 15:18

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
Maria Eduarda Nobre, clomiphene, cluster headache
Sections

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Legacy Keywords
Maria Eduarda Nobre, clomiphene, cluster headache
Legacy Keywords
Maria Eduarda Nobre, clomiphene, cluster headache
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:15
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 11:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Alan Rapoport, MD

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 10:44
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Publications
Topics
Sections
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
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 10:15
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 10:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 07/12/2018 - 10:15

Meet the rare diabetes diagnosis that thrills patients

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:18

 

Liana K. Billings, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Chicago and the NorthShore University HealthSystem in Skokie, Ill., loves the thrill of letting patients know they have a rare kind of diabetes. “Once you do this once, you don’t want to stop,” she told colleagues in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “I hope you all have the experience of diagnosing someone with MODY. It’s phenomenal.”

Dr. Miriam Udler

Yes, it’s true: There’s a diabetes diagnosis that spawns good feelings like delight and relief. The cause for celebration is a condition known as monogenetic diabetes, also known as maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) if it develops after the neonatal period.

“The reason that getting a diagnosis of MODY can be a ‘good’ diagnosis is because the three most common forms of MODY have gene-specific treatments that typically improve patients’ glycemic control and are less onerous than the treatments patients were previously receiving when they were thought to have type 1 or type 2 diabetes,” explained Miriam S. Udler, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

Dr. Udler and Dr. Billings spoke to colleagues about monogenetic diabetes in their presentation at the ADA meeting.

Research has suggested that 1%-4% of people with diabetes have the monogenetic form, in which the condition is caused by changes in a single gene. A 2017 British study of 1,407 patients with diabetes reported that “the minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.”

The study, which tested a screening regimen, also turned up 17 new diagnoses of monogenetic diabetes among the 1,407 patients, doubling the total. The findings reflect an apparent fact about monogenetic diabetes: Physicians often don’t look for it, even though a diagnosis can be a godsend – especially for those who were previously diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 and placed on treatment regimens that are unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. (Diabetes Care. 2017 Aug;40[8]: 1017-25)

Patients with the MODY variant in the GCK gene, for example, “can generally stop all medications because they are not at risk for clinically significant complications of diabetes,” Dr. Udler said. “Patients with HNF1A and HNF4A variants can often be switched from insulin injections to ... a sulfonylurea, which is easier to take than insulin injections, and patients generally have better glycemic control after switching to pills.”

Unfortunately for doctors and patients, it can be complicated and costly to test for monogenetic diabetes. But screening tools are available to help physicians make choices about whether to launch testing in the first place, according to Dr. Udler and Dr. Billings.

There are two forms of monogenetic diabetes – neonatal diabetes, which is diagnosed by age 6-9 months, and MODY, which is typically diagnosed in those aged between 10 and 25 years, noted Dr. Billings.

Reasons to suspect MODY include early onset of diabetes (under 35 years), a family history of diabetes, a lack of obesity, and negative islet-cell antibodies, she said.

Obese patients may also have the condition: A 2017 American study of 488 overweight and obese children and adolescents diagnosed with type 2 diabetes found that 4.5% actually had monogenetic diabetes. (Genet Med. 2018 Jun;20[6]:583-90).

Once a physician suspects MODY, physicians may consult the University of Exeter’s risk calculator. It provides guidance about whether a test is a good idea. Dr. Billings cautioned, however, that the value of a calculator’s estimate of risk is not all-encompassing. “You should never use the calculator by itself as a reason to not pursue your intuition,” she said.

Dr. Udler noted that the University of Exeter calculator has important limitations, such as its reliance on specific genes, its lack of consideration of family history outside of parents, and its reliance on the experiences of white European patients.

As for tests, the University of Chicago and the University of Exeter both offer free genetic testing for neonatal diabetes, Dr. Billings said in her presentation.

Monogenetic diabetes tests in older children and adults are not free. However, Dr. Udler said the tests are often covered by insurance companies whether done for one or more genes.

At least one company offers a direct-to-consumer monogenetic diabetes test, according to Dr. Udler, but she recommended against it, especially in light of a curious online notice that says the test isn’t intended to be diagnostic. “I’m not sure what this would be useful for then,” she said.

For her part, Dr. Billings cautioned that test results may be inconclusive, and tests may offer different answers. She also recommended referring patients to genetic counseling.

Dr. Udler reported a board member/advisory panel relationship with Encompass Bioscience. Dr. Billings reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom.
 

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Liana K. Billings, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Chicago and the NorthShore University HealthSystem in Skokie, Ill., loves the thrill of letting patients know they have a rare kind of diabetes. “Once you do this once, you don’t want to stop,” she told colleagues in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “I hope you all have the experience of diagnosing someone with MODY. It’s phenomenal.”

Dr. Miriam Udler

Yes, it’s true: There’s a diabetes diagnosis that spawns good feelings like delight and relief. The cause for celebration is a condition known as monogenetic diabetes, also known as maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) if it develops after the neonatal period.

“The reason that getting a diagnosis of MODY can be a ‘good’ diagnosis is because the three most common forms of MODY have gene-specific treatments that typically improve patients’ glycemic control and are less onerous than the treatments patients were previously receiving when they were thought to have type 1 or type 2 diabetes,” explained Miriam S. Udler, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

Dr. Udler and Dr. Billings spoke to colleagues about monogenetic diabetes in their presentation at the ADA meeting.

Research has suggested that 1%-4% of people with diabetes have the monogenetic form, in which the condition is caused by changes in a single gene. A 2017 British study of 1,407 patients with diabetes reported that “the minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.”

The study, which tested a screening regimen, also turned up 17 new diagnoses of monogenetic diabetes among the 1,407 patients, doubling the total. The findings reflect an apparent fact about monogenetic diabetes: Physicians often don’t look for it, even though a diagnosis can be a godsend – especially for those who were previously diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 and placed on treatment regimens that are unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. (Diabetes Care. 2017 Aug;40[8]: 1017-25)

Patients with the MODY variant in the GCK gene, for example, “can generally stop all medications because they are not at risk for clinically significant complications of diabetes,” Dr. Udler said. “Patients with HNF1A and HNF4A variants can often be switched from insulin injections to ... a sulfonylurea, which is easier to take than insulin injections, and patients generally have better glycemic control after switching to pills.”

Unfortunately for doctors and patients, it can be complicated and costly to test for monogenetic diabetes. But screening tools are available to help physicians make choices about whether to launch testing in the first place, according to Dr. Udler and Dr. Billings.

There are two forms of monogenetic diabetes – neonatal diabetes, which is diagnosed by age 6-9 months, and MODY, which is typically diagnosed in those aged between 10 and 25 years, noted Dr. Billings.

Reasons to suspect MODY include early onset of diabetes (under 35 years), a family history of diabetes, a lack of obesity, and negative islet-cell antibodies, she said.

Obese patients may also have the condition: A 2017 American study of 488 overweight and obese children and adolescents diagnosed with type 2 diabetes found that 4.5% actually had monogenetic diabetes. (Genet Med. 2018 Jun;20[6]:583-90).

Once a physician suspects MODY, physicians may consult the University of Exeter’s risk calculator. It provides guidance about whether a test is a good idea. Dr. Billings cautioned, however, that the value of a calculator’s estimate of risk is not all-encompassing. “You should never use the calculator by itself as a reason to not pursue your intuition,” she said.

Dr. Udler noted that the University of Exeter calculator has important limitations, such as its reliance on specific genes, its lack of consideration of family history outside of parents, and its reliance on the experiences of white European patients.

As for tests, the University of Chicago and the University of Exeter both offer free genetic testing for neonatal diabetes, Dr. Billings said in her presentation.

Monogenetic diabetes tests in older children and adults are not free. However, Dr. Udler said the tests are often covered by insurance companies whether done for one or more genes.

At least one company offers a direct-to-consumer monogenetic diabetes test, according to Dr. Udler, but she recommended against it, especially in light of a curious online notice that says the test isn’t intended to be diagnostic. “I’m not sure what this would be useful for then,” she said.

For her part, Dr. Billings cautioned that test results may be inconclusive, and tests may offer different answers. She also recommended referring patients to genetic counseling.

Dr. Udler reported a board member/advisory panel relationship with Encompass Bioscience. Dr. Billings reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom.
 

 

Liana K. Billings, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Chicago and the NorthShore University HealthSystem in Skokie, Ill., loves the thrill of letting patients know they have a rare kind of diabetes. “Once you do this once, you don’t want to stop,” she told colleagues in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “I hope you all have the experience of diagnosing someone with MODY. It’s phenomenal.”

Dr. Miriam Udler

Yes, it’s true: There’s a diabetes diagnosis that spawns good feelings like delight and relief. The cause for celebration is a condition known as monogenetic diabetes, also known as maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) if it develops after the neonatal period.

“The reason that getting a diagnosis of MODY can be a ‘good’ diagnosis is because the three most common forms of MODY have gene-specific treatments that typically improve patients’ glycemic control and are less onerous than the treatments patients were previously receiving when they were thought to have type 1 or type 2 diabetes,” explained Miriam S. Udler, MD, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an interview.

Dr. Udler and Dr. Billings spoke to colleagues about monogenetic diabetes in their presentation at the ADA meeting.

Research has suggested that 1%-4% of people with diabetes have the monogenetic form, in which the condition is caused by changes in a single gene. A 2017 British study of 1,407 patients with diabetes reported that “the minimum prevalence of monogenic diabetes is 3.6% of patients diagnosed at age 30 years or younger.”

The study, which tested a screening regimen, also turned up 17 new diagnoses of monogenetic diabetes among the 1,407 patients, doubling the total. The findings reflect an apparent fact about monogenetic diabetes: Physicians often don’t look for it, even though a diagnosis can be a godsend – especially for those who were previously diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 and placed on treatment regimens that are unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. (Diabetes Care. 2017 Aug;40[8]: 1017-25)

Patients with the MODY variant in the GCK gene, for example, “can generally stop all medications because they are not at risk for clinically significant complications of diabetes,” Dr. Udler said. “Patients with HNF1A and HNF4A variants can often be switched from insulin injections to ... a sulfonylurea, which is easier to take than insulin injections, and patients generally have better glycemic control after switching to pills.”

Unfortunately for doctors and patients, it can be complicated and costly to test for monogenetic diabetes. But screening tools are available to help physicians make choices about whether to launch testing in the first place, according to Dr. Udler and Dr. Billings.

There are two forms of monogenetic diabetes – neonatal diabetes, which is diagnosed by age 6-9 months, and MODY, which is typically diagnosed in those aged between 10 and 25 years, noted Dr. Billings.

Reasons to suspect MODY include early onset of diabetes (under 35 years), a family history of diabetes, a lack of obesity, and negative islet-cell antibodies, she said.

Obese patients may also have the condition: A 2017 American study of 488 overweight and obese children and adolescents diagnosed with type 2 diabetes found that 4.5% actually had monogenetic diabetes. (Genet Med. 2018 Jun;20[6]:583-90).

Once a physician suspects MODY, physicians may consult the University of Exeter’s risk calculator. It provides guidance about whether a test is a good idea. Dr. Billings cautioned, however, that the value of a calculator’s estimate of risk is not all-encompassing. “You should never use the calculator by itself as a reason to not pursue your intuition,” she said.

Dr. Udler noted that the University of Exeter calculator has important limitations, such as its reliance on specific genes, its lack of consideration of family history outside of parents, and its reliance on the experiences of white European patients.

As for tests, the University of Chicago and the University of Exeter both offer free genetic testing for neonatal diabetes, Dr. Billings said in her presentation.

Monogenetic diabetes tests in older children and adults are not free. However, Dr. Udler said the tests are often covered by insurance companies whether done for one or more genes.

At least one company offers a direct-to-consumer monogenetic diabetes test, according to Dr. Udler, but she recommended against it, especially in light of a curious online notice that says the test isn’t intended to be diagnostic. “I’m not sure what this would be useful for then,” she said.

For her part, Dr. Billings cautioned that test results may be inconclusive, and tests may offer different answers. She also recommended referring patients to genetic counseling.

Dr. Udler reported a board member/advisory panel relationship with Encompass Bioscience. Dr. Billings reported relationships with Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom.
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ADA 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Looking at study results with a critical eye

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:48

 

As a physician you are the embodiment of delayed gratification. You spent more than 20 years in school before you earned a degree that then allowed you spend another 3-plus years in training before anyone would consider you a “real” doctor. Somewhere along that long and shallow trajectory someone may have said, “You must have done really well on the marshmallow test.”

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Described first in 1990 by Shoda et al. in the journal Developmental Psychology, the marshmallow test found that children who could wait longer for a reward (in this case a marshmallow) had higher SAT scores as teenagers. (Dev Psychol. 1990 Nov;26[6]:978-86). In large part because the results of the study feel intuitive and square with our sense of fairness, the marshmallow test has become one of the unquestioned cornerstones of developmental psychology.

That is, until this year, when an attempt to replicate the initial study by Shoda et al. failed to find that the associations between delayed gratification and adolescent achievement were anywhere near as significant as those reported in the 1990 study (Psychol Sci. 2018 May. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661). Watts et al. suggest that the discrepancy may be explained in part by a failure to adequately control for family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability in the initial experimental design.

Is there a message here? Should we stop wasting our time reading papers from the developmental psychology literature? Not just yet. There are more papers coming out in which the authors attempt to replicate other landmark studies, often without success (“Undergrads Can Improve Psychology,” by Russel T. Warne and Jordan Wagge, The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018). Let’s wait and see how much more debunking there is going to be before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

The real message is that every study we encounter should be read with a critical eye regardless of how prestigious the institution of origin and regardless of how much it appeals to our common sense. Our intuition can be a powerful tool when we are looking for answers, but it can lead us astray if we take it too seriously.

It is often said that a good experiment is one that raises more questions than it answers. You don’t have to remember all that stuff you learned when you studied statistics to be able to question the results of a study you read in a peer-reviewed journal. I find that in many of the papers I read I have serious concerns about how well the authors have controlled for the not-so-obvious variables.

So where does this failed attempt at replicating the original marshmallow test study leave us? It is still very likely given your aptitude for delayed gratification that had you been given the test as a preschooler you would not have even touched the marshmallow until the experimenter re-entered the room to end the test and then ... you probably would have offered to share it with her.

 

 

But these new results suggest that your ability to delay gratification was not some skill with which you were born. You may have been born smarter than the average child, but your skill at delaying gratification may have been one you learned from your parents and assimilated from the home environment in which your grew up. This may be one of those nature-or-nurture skirmishes in which nurture wins. And, it may be another good example of the importance of the first 3 or 4 years in a child’s emotional and psychological development.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

As a physician you are the embodiment of delayed gratification. You spent more than 20 years in school before you earned a degree that then allowed you spend another 3-plus years in training before anyone would consider you a “real” doctor. Somewhere along that long and shallow trajectory someone may have said, “You must have done really well on the marshmallow test.”

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Described first in 1990 by Shoda et al. in the journal Developmental Psychology, the marshmallow test found that children who could wait longer for a reward (in this case a marshmallow) had higher SAT scores as teenagers. (Dev Psychol. 1990 Nov;26[6]:978-86). In large part because the results of the study feel intuitive and square with our sense of fairness, the marshmallow test has become one of the unquestioned cornerstones of developmental psychology.

That is, until this year, when an attempt to replicate the initial study by Shoda et al. failed to find that the associations between delayed gratification and adolescent achievement were anywhere near as significant as those reported in the 1990 study (Psychol Sci. 2018 May. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661). Watts et al. suggest that the discrepancy may be explained in part by a failure to adequately control for family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability in the initial experimental design.

Is there a message here? Should we stop wasting our time reading papers from the developmental psychology literature? Not just yet. There are more papers coming out in which the authors attempt to replicate other landmark studies, often without success (“Undergrads Can Improve Psychology,” by Russel T. Warne and Jordan Wagge, The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018). Let’s wait and see how much more debunking there is going to be before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

The real message is that every study we encounter should be read with a critical eye regardless of how prestigious the institution of origin and regardless of how much it appeals to our common sense. Our intuition can be a powerful tool when we are looking for answers, but it can lead us astray if we take it too seriously.

It is often said that a good experiment is one that raises more questions than it answers. You don’t have to remember all that stuff you learned when you studied statistics to be able to question the results of a study you read in a peer-reviewed journal. I find that in many of the papers I read I have serious concerns about how well the authors have controlled for the not-so-obvious variables.

So where does this failed attempt at replicating the original marshmallow test study leave us? It is still very likely given your aptitude for delayed gratification that had you been given the test as a preschooler you would not have even touched the marshmallow until the experimenter re-entered the room to end the test and then ... you probably would have offered to share it with her.

 

 

But these new results suggest that your ability to delay gratification was not some skill with which you were born. You may have been born smarter than the average child, but your skill at delaying gratification may have been one you learned from your parents and assimilated from the home environment in which your grew up. This may be one of those nature-or-nurture skirmishes in which nurture wins. And, it may be another good example of the importance of the first 3 or 4 years in a child’s emotional and psychological development.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

 

As a physician you are the embodiment of delayed gratification. You spent more than 20 years in school before you earned a degree that then allowed you spend another 3-plus years in training before anyone would consider you a “real” doctor. Somewhere along that long and shallow trajectory someone may have said, “You must have done really well on the marshmallow test.”

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff
Described first in 1990 by Shoda et al. in the journal Developmental Psychology, the marshmallow test found that children who could wait longer for a reward (in this case a marshmallow) had higher SAT scores as teenagers. (Dev Psychol. 1990 Nov;26[6]:978-86). In large part because the results of the study feel intuitive and square with our sense of fairness, the marshmallow test has become one of the unquestioned cornerstones of developmental psychology.

That is, until this year, when an attempt to replicate the initial study by Shoda et al. failed to find that the associations between delayed gratification and adolescent achievement were anywhere near as significant as those reported in the 1990 study (Psychol Sci. 2018 May. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661). Watts et al. suggest that the discrepancy may be explained in part by a failure to adequately control for family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability in the initial experimental design.

Is there a message here? Should we stop wasting our time reading papers from the developmental psychology literature? Not just yet. There are more papers coming out in which the authors attempt to replicate other landmark studies, often without success (“Undergrads Can Improve Psychology,” by Russel T. Warne and Jordan Wagge, The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018). Let’s wait and see how much more debunking there is going to be before we throw the baby out with the bath water.

The real message is that every study we encounter should be read with a critical eye regardless of how prestigious the institution of origin and regardless of how much it appeals to our common sense. Our intuition can be a powerful tool when we are looking for answers, but it can lead us astray if we take it too seriously.

It is often said that a good experiment is one that raises more questions than it answers. You don’t have to remember all that stuff you learned when you studied statistics to be able to question the results of a study you read in a peer-reviewed journal. I find that in many of the papers I read I have serious concerns about how well the authors have controlled for the not-so-obvious variables.

So where does this failed attempt at replicating the original marshmallow test study leave us? It is still very likely given your aptitude for delayed gratification that had you been given the test as a preschooler you would not have even touched the marshmallow until the experimenter re-entered the room to end the test and then ... you probably would have offered to share it with her.

 

 

But these new results suggest that your ability to delay gratification was not some skill with which you were born. You may have been born smarter than the average child, but your skill at delaying gratification may have been one you learned from your parents and assimilated from the home environment in which your grew up. This may be one of those nature-or-nurture skirmishes in which nurture wins. And, it may be another good example of the importance of the first 3 or 4 years in a child’s emotional and psychological development.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Should you be worried about the declining birth rate?

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:48

 

The number of births in the United States has fallen for the second year in a row. Births in 2017 were down 2% from 2016, bringing the birth rate to a 30-year low at 60 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. This decline spanned nearly all maternal age groups, including teenagers (Hamilton et al. NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report No 004, May 2018).

In the crudest terms, babies represent the raw material of pediatrics. Without children, we pediatricians would have to begin treating those whining adults. Most of us chose pediatrics because we enjoy being around children, and many of us were motivated to study medicine by a desire to help sick children. Is this decline in the supply stream of patients something we should be worrying about?

gpointstudio/Thinkstock


Before we start looking for other less appealing employment opportunities, let’s look a little closer at the reasons for this declining birth rate. A traditional explanation cites an association between the number of births and the health of the economy. However, this recent decline has occurred in the face of an obviously improving economy.

In an attempt to find a more nuanced explanation, the New York Times asked a nationally representative sample of 1,858 young adults aged 20-45 years how they felt about having children (“Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.” by Claire Cain Miller, July 5, 2018). The results were interesting and not necessarily surprising. When the respondents were asked why they had or were expecting to have fewer children than they considered ideal, six of their first eight reasons were linked to their finances, with “Child care is too expensive” leading all answers at 64%. The second highest response was “Want more time for the children I have” (54%) and the sixth was “Want more leisure time”(42%).

When the young adults were asked why they aren’t having children, “Want more leisure time” moved to No. 1 (32%) and “Can’t afford day care” fell to third place (31%) just ahead of “No desire for children” (30%).

Embedded in this data from the National Vital Statistic System (NVSS) and the New York Times poll are the seeds of reassurance. The observation that the young adults’ second reason for not wanting to have more children was that they wanted to have more time with the children they have suggests what pediatricians already have observed for a generation or two. Modern adults appear to be taking their role as parents more seriously. They worry that they aren’t doing a good job and look to us as one of their, if not their most, trusted advisers.
AleksandarNakic/E+/Getty Images


This epidemic of parental anxiety does not appear to be abating with the declining birth rate. It continues to generate a large percentage of phone calls and office visits. Over the course of my career, it became clear that although there were fewer children being born in our community, pediatricians remained busy, but with a broader spectrum of complaints that tilted toward behavioral issues.

In the current NVSS data, the cesarean section rate rose again and is now 32%, and the preterm birth rate increased for the third year in a row to 10%. The birth rate for low-birth-weight infants climbed to 8%, the highest since 2006. So while the number of births has fallen to a 30-year low, there appear to be more high-risk babies being born.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff

You can worry about job security if you like, but in a quirky kind of way pediatrics is following along its own rules of supply and demand. And, you should rest easy ... that is until the next panicked call from a parent wakes you in the middle of the night.


 

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The number of births in the United States has fallen for the second year in a row. Births in 2017 were down 2% from 2016, bringing the birth rate to a 30-year low at 60 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. This decline spanned nearly all maternal age groups, including teenagers (Hamilton et al. NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report No 004, May 2018).

In the crudest terms, babies represent the raw material of pediatrics. Without children, we pediatricians would have to begin treating those whining adults. Most of us chose pediatrics because we enjoy being around children, and many of us were motivated to study medicine by a desire to help sick children. Is this decline in the supply stream of patients something we should be worrying about?

gpointstudio/Thinkstock


Before we start looking for other less appealing employment opportunities, let’s look a little closer at the reasons for this declining birth rate. A traditional explanation cites an association between the number of births and the health of the economy. However, this recent decline has occurred in the face of an obviously improving economy.

In an attempt to find a more nuanced explanation, the New York Times asked a nationally representative sample of 1,858 young adults aged 20-45 years how they felt about having children (“Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.” by Claire Cain Miller, July 5, 2018). The results were interesting and not necessarily surprising. When the respondents were asked why they had or were expecting to have fewer children than they considered ideal, six of their first eight reasons were linked to their finances, with “Child care is too expensive” leading all answers at 64%. The second highest response was “Want more time for the children I have” (54%) and the sixth was “Want more leisure time”(42%).

When the young adults were asked why they aren’t having children, “Want more leisure time” moved to No. 1 (32%) and “Can’t afford day care” fell to third place (31%) just ahead of “No desire for children” (30%).

Embedded in this data from the National Vital Statistic System (NVSS) and the New York Times poll are the seeds of reassurance. The observation that the young adults’ second reason for not wanting to have more children was that they wanted to have more time with the children they have suggests what pediatricians already have observed for a generation or two. Modern adults appear to be taking their role as parents more seriously. They worry that they aren’t doing a good job and look to us as one of their, if not their most, trusted advisers.
AleksandarNakic/E+/Getty Images


This epidemic of parental anxiety does not appear to be abating with the declining birth rate. It continues to generate a large percentage of phone calls and office visits. Over the course of my career, it became clear that although there were fewer children being born in our community, pediatricians remained busy, but with a broader spectrum of complaints that tilted toward behavioral issues.

In the current NVSS data, the cesarean section rate rose again and is now 32%, and the preterm birth rate increased for the third year in a row to 10%. The birth rate for low-birth-weight infants climbed to 8%, the highest since 2006. So while the number of births has fallen to a 30-year low, there appear to be more high-risk babies being born.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff

You can worry about job security if you like, but in a quirky kind of way pediatrics is following along its own rules of supply and demand. And, you should rest easy ... that is until the next panicked call from a parent wakes you in the middle of the night.


 

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

 

The number of births in the United States has fallen for the second year in a row. Births in 2017 were down 2% from 2016, bringing the birth rate to a 30-year low at 60 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. This decline spanned nearly all maternal age groups, including teenagers (Hamilton et al. NVSS Vital Statistics Rapid Release Report No 004, May 2018).

In the crudest terms, babies represent the raw material of pediatrics. Without children, we pediatricians would have to begin treating those whining adults. Most of us chose pediatrics because we enjoy being around children, and many of us were motivated to study medicine by a desire to help sick children. Is this decline in the supply stream of patients something we should be worrying about?

gpointstudio/Thinkstock


Before we start looking for other less appealing employment opportunities, let’s look a little closer at the reasons for this declining birth rate. A traditional explanation cites an association between the number of births and the health of the economy. However, this recent decline has occurred in the face of an obviously improving economy.

In an attempt to find a more nuanced explanation, the New York Times asked a nationally representative sample of 1,858 young adults aged 20-45 years how they felt about having children (“Americans Are Having Fewer Babies. They Told Us Why.” by Claire Cain Miller, July 5, 2018). The results were interesting and not necessarily surprising. When the respondents were asked why they had or were expecting to have fewer children than they considered ideal, six of their first eight reasons were linked to their finances, with “Child care is too expensive” leading all answers at 64%. The second highest response was “Want more time for the children I have” (54%) and the sixth was “Want more leisure time”(42%).

When the young adults were asked why they aren’t having children, “Want more leisure time” moved to No. 1 (32%) and “Can’t afford day care” fell to third place (31%) just ahead of “No desire for children” (30%).

Embedded in this data from the National Vital Statistic System (NVSS) and the New York Times poll are the seeds of reassurance. The observation that the young adults’ second reason for not wanting to have more children was that they wanted to have more time with the children they have suggests what pediatricians already have observed for a generation or two. Modern adults appear to be taking their role as parents more seriously. They worry that they aren’t doing a good job and look to us as one of their, if not their most, trusted advisers.
AleksandarNakic/E+/Getty Images


This epidemic of parental anxiety does not appear to be abating with the declining birth rate. It continues to generate a large percentage of phone calls and office visits. Over the course of my career, it became clear that although there were fewer children being born in our community, pediatricians remained busy, but with a broader spectrum of complaints that tilted toward behavioral issues.

In the current NVSS data, the cesarean section rate rose again and is now 32%, and the preterm birth rate increased for the third year in a row to 10%. The birth rate for low-birth-weight infants climbed to 8%, the highest since 2006. So while the number of births has fallen to a 30-year low, there appear to be more high-risk babies being born.

Dr. William G. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years.
Dr. William G. Wilkoff

You can worry about job security if you like, but in a quirky kind of way pediatrics is following along its own rules of supply and demand. And, you should rest easy ... that is until the next panicked call from a parent wakes you in the middle of the night.


 

 

 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Immunotherapies extend survival for melanoma patients with brain metastases

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 10:27

 

Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) and BRAFV600-targeted therapy in 2011, survival times for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) have significantly improved, with a 91% increase in 4-year overall survival (OS) from 7.4% to 14.1%.

“The management of advanced melanoma has traditionally been tempered by limited responses to conventional therapies, resulting in a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year,” wrote J. Bryan Iorgulescu, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues. The report was published in Cancer Immunology Research. “The landscape of advanced melanoma treatment was revolutionized” by the approval of immunotherapy agents, beginning in 2011.

The current, retrospective study involved 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma. Patient data were drawn from the National Cancer Database, with diagnoses made between 2010 and 2015. Patient management, overall survival, and disease characteristics were evaluated.

During initial review, the researchers found that 35.8% of patients with stage IV melanoma had brain involvement. These patients were further categorized by those with MBM only (39.7%) versus those with extracranial metastatic disease (60.3%), which included involvement of lung (82.9%), liver (8.1%), bone (6.0%), and lymph nodes or distant subcutaneous skin (3%). MBM-only disease was independently predicted by both younger age and geographic location.

Patients receiving first-line CBI therapy demonstrated improved 4-year OS (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than.001) and median OS (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Improvements with CBI were most dramatic in patients with MBM-only disease. In these cases, 4-year OS improved from 16.9% to 51.5% (P less than .001), while median OS jumped from 7.7 months to 56.4 months (P less than .001).

Improved OS was also associated with fewer comorbidities, younger age, management at an academic cancer center, single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, and resection of the MBM.

“Our findings help bridge the gaps in early clinical trials of CBIs that largely excluded stage IV melanoma patients with MBMs, with checkpoint immunotherapy demonstrating a more than doubling of the median and 4-year OS of MBMs,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12 doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) and BRAFV600-targeted therapy in 2011, survival times for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) have significantly improved, with a 91% increase in 4-year overall survival (OS) from 7.4% to 14.1%.

“The management of advanced melanoma has traditionally been tempered by limited responses to conventional therapies, resulting in a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year,” wrote J. Bryan Iorgulescu, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues. The report was published in Cancer Immunology Research. “The landscape of advanced melanoma treatment was revolutionized” by the approval of immunotherapy agents, beginning in 2011.

The current, retrospective study involved 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma. Patient data were drawn from the National Cancer Database, with diagnoses made between 2010 and 2015. Patient management, overall survival, and disease characteristics were evaluated.

During initial review, the researchers found that 35.8% of patients with stage IV melanoma had brain involvement. These patients were further categorized by those with MBM only (39.7%) versus those with extracranial metastatic disease (60.3%), which included involvement of lung (82.9%), liver (8.1%), bone (6.0%), and lymph nodes or distant subcutaneous skin (3%). MBM-only disease was independently predicted by both younger age and geographic location.

Patients receiving first-line CBI therapy demonstrated improved 4-year OS (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than.001) and median OS (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Improvements with CBI were most dramatic in patients with MBM-only disease. In these cases, 4-year OS improved from 16.9% to 51.5% (P less than .001), while median OS jumped from 7.7 months to 56.4 months (P less than .001).

Improved OS was also associated with fewer comorbidities, younger age, management at an academic cancer center, single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, and resection of the MBM.

“Our findings help bridge the gaps in early clinical trials of CBIs that largely excluded stage IV melanoma patients with MBMs, with checkpoint immunotherapy demonstrating a more than doubling of the median and 4-year OS of MBMs,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12 doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

 

Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) and BRAFV600-targeted therapy in 2011, survival times for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) have significantly improved, with a 91% increase in 4-year overall survival (OS) from 7.4% to 14.1%.

“The management of advanced melanoma has traditionally been tempered by limited responses to conventional therapies, resulting in a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year,” wrote J. Bryan Iorgulescu, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues. The report was published in Cancer Immunology Research. “The landscape of advanced melanoma treatment was revolutionized” by the approval of immunotherapy agents, beginning in 2011.

The current, retrospective study involved 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma. Patient data were drawn from the National Cancer Database, with diagnoses made between 2010 and 2015. Patient management, overall survival, and disease characteristics were evaluated.

During initial review, the researchers found that 35.8% of patients with stage IV melanoma had brain involvement. These patients were further categorized by those with MBM only (39.7%) versus those with extracranial metastatic disease (60.3%), which included involvement of lung (82.9%), liver (8.1%), bone (6.0%), and lymph nodes or distant subcutaneous skin (3%). MBM-only disease was independently predicted by both younger age and geographic location.

Patients receiving first-line CBI therapy demonstrated improved 4-year OS (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than.001) and median OS (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Improvements with CBI were most dramatic in patients with MBM-only disease. In these cases, 4-year OS improved from 16.9% to 51.5% (P less than .001), while median OS jumped from 7.7 months to 56.4 months (P less than .001).

Improved OS was also associated with fewer comorbidities, younger age, management at an academic cancer center, single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, and resection of the MBM.

“Our findings help bridge the gaps in early clinical trials of CBIs that largely excluded stage IV melanoma patients with MBMs, with checkpoint immunotherapy demonstrating a more than doubling of the median and 4-year OS of MBMs,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12 doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM CANCER IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Checkpoint blockade immunotherapy and BRAFV600-targeted therapy improve survival for patients with melanoma brain metastases.

Major finding: Patients with melanoma brain metastases receiving first-line checkpoint blockade immunotherapy had an improved 4-year overall survival (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than .001) and median overall survival (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Study details: A retrospective study of 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma and brain metastases, from the National Cancer Database, between 2010 and 2015.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Institute of Health, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and others. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Depression screening rates remain low for undiagnosed adults

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:48

 

Depression screening among U.S. adults was 1.4% for the period from 2005 to 2015 despite a 2009 recommendation for routine screening from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, data from a cross-sectional study show.

FilmColoratStudio/iStock/Getty Images
Depression affects about 16 million adults in the United States but remains underdiagnosed, wrote Sandipan Bhattacharjee, PhD, of College of Pharmacy at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and his colleagues.

In a brief report published online in Psychiatric Services, the researchers reviewed data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for the years 2005-2015. The study population included adults aged 18 and older without a previous history of depression. Overall, 105 million ambulatory care visits to nonpsychiatrists during the study period included depression screening. Rates varied during the study period and ranged from a low of .65% in 2008 to a high of 3% in 2015. About two-thirds of the study population fell into the 18- to 64-year-old age range, 60% were women, 73% were white, and 89% lived in cities.

A multivariate analysis showed a significant increase in the likelihood of depression screening each year (odds ratio, 1.12), the researchers noted, and screening rates increased significantly in the years after 2009 in a piecewise regression analysis, Dr. Bhattacharjee and his associates reported.

The investigators also found links between the amount of time patients spent in physicians’ offices and higher screening rates. “Since increasing the length of time of the actual visit to the physician may be difficult, it is recommended that other health care providers in these settings be trained to provide screening,” they wrote.

The study was conducted before an updated USPSTF recommendation for screening regardless of the presence of enhanced services, the researchers noted, and “the low screening rate observed likely reflects the earlier recommendation,” they said. The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that prevents causal inferences and the variation in depression screening methods, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that depression screening in primary care remains low – even in the years since the 2009 recommendation, they said.

Dr. Bhattacharjee disclosed no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Bhattacharjee S et al. Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Jul 9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700439.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Depression screening among U.S. adults was 1.4% for the period from 2005 to 2015 despite a 2009 recommendation for routine screening from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, data from a cross-sectional study show.

FilmColoratStudio/iStock/Getty Images
Depression affects about 16 million adults in the United States but remains underdiagnosed, wrote Sandipan Bhattacharjee, PhD, of College of Pharmacy at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and his colleagues.

In a brief report published online in Psychiatric Services, the researchers reviewed data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for the years 2005-2015. The study population included adults aged 18 and older without a previous history of depression. Overall, 105 million ambulatory care visits to nonpsychiatrists during the study period included depression screening. Rates varied during the study period and ranged from a low of .65% in 2008 to a high of 3% in 2015. About two-thirds of the study population fell into the 18- to 64-year-old age range, 60% were women, 73% were white, and 89% lived in cities.

A multivariate analysis showed a significant increase in the likelihood of depression screening each year (odds ratio, 1.12), the researchers noted, and screening rates increased significantly in the years after 2009 in a piecewise regression analysis, Dr. Bhattacharjee and his associates reported.

The investigators also found links between the amount of time patients spent in physicians’ offices and higher screening rates. “Since increasing the length of time of the actual visit to the physician may be difficult, it is recommended that other health care providers in these settings be trained to provide screening,” they wrote.

The study was conducted before an updated USPSTF recommendation for screening regardless of the presence of enhanced services, the researchers noted, and “the low screening rate observed likely reflects the earlier recommendation,” they said. The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that prevents causal inferences and the variation in depression screening methods, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that depression screening in primary care remains low – even in the years since the 2009 recommendation, they said.

Dr. Bhattacharjee disclosed no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Bhattacharjee S et al. Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Jul 9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700439.

 

Depression screening among U.S. adults was 1.4% for the period from 2005 to 2015 despite a 2009 recommendation for routine screening from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, data from a cross-sectional study show.

FilmColoratStudio/iStock/Getty Images
Depression affects about 16 million adults in the United States but remains underdiagnosed, wrote Sandipan Bhattacharjee, PhD, of College of Pharmacy at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and his colleagues.

In a brief report published online in Psychiatric Services, the researchers reviewed data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for the years 2005-2015. The study population included adults aged 18 and older without a previous history of depression. Overall, 105 million ambulatory care visits to nonpsychiatrists during the study period included depression screening. Rates varied during the study period and ranged from a low of .65% in 2008 to a high of 3% in 2015. About two-thirds of the study population fell into the 18- to 64-year-old age range, 60% were women, 73% were white, and 89% lived in cities.

A multivariate analysis showed a significant increase in the likelihood of depression screening each year (odds ratio, 1.12), the researchers noted, and screening rates increased significantly in the years after 2009 in a piecewise regression analysis, Dr. Bhattacharjee and his associates reported.

The investigators also found links between the amount of time patients spent in physicians’ offices and higher screening rates. “Since increasing the length of time of the actual visit to the physician may be difficult, it is recommended that other health care providers in these settings be trained to provide screening,” they wrote.

The study was conducted before an updated USPSTF recommendation for screening regardless of the presence of enhanced services, the researchers noted, and “the low screening rate observed likely reflects the earlier recommendation,” they said. The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional study design that prevents causal inferences and the variation in depression screening methods, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that depression screening in primary care remains low – even in the years since the 2009 recommendation, they said.

Dr. Bhattacharjee disclosed no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Bhattacharjee S et al. Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Jul 9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700439.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

T-DM1 produces 44% response rate in HER2-mutant lung cancers

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 14:20

 

Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) has met a predefined efficacy endpoint in what investigators say is the first positive clinical trial in patients with advanced HER2-mutant lung cancers.

The HER2-targeted therapy produced a 44% overall response rate among 18 patients enrolled in the phase 2, investigator-initiated basket trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 months in this heavily pretreated group of patients, according to first author Bob T. Li, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his coauthors.

“This is important therapeutic progress in the context of more than a decade of negative clinical trials targeting HER2 in lung cancer,” the researchers wrote.

The patients (median age, 64 years; 72% female) had metastatic lung adenocarcinomas treated in 2016 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All patients had HER2-activating mutations identified by next-generation sequencing. They had received a median of two lines of prior therapy. Three of the 18 patients were treatment naive. Prior HER2-targeted therapy, including trastuzumab, was allowed.

All patients received intravenous infusions of T-DM1 at 3.6 mg/kg every 21 days until progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity.

Confirmed partial responses were seen in 8 patients (44%), while an additional 7 (39%) had stable disease, Dr. Li and his coauthors reported. Median PFS was 5 months overall and 6 months for responders, with the longest observed PFS being more than 11 months.

The treatment was well tolerated, with treatment-related adverse events mainly consisting of grade 1-2 infusion reactions, elevation of hepatic transaminases, and thrombocytopenia.

The rate of infusion reactions was higher than what was expected based on the experience with T-DM1 in breast cancer, though these reactions were generally mild and did not require discontinuation of the drug, which is approved for the treatment of HER2-amplified or –overexpressing metastatic breast cancer.

These findings have important implication for drug development in HER-2 mutant lung cancers, particularly as next-generation sequencing becomes more commonly used for initial tumor evaluation, Dr. Li and his coauthors noted.

“Just as the discovery of EGFR mutations eventually led to a plethora of approved oncogene-targeted therapies transforming the care of patients around the world, HER2-activating mutations similarly show promise as a therapeutic target,” they wrote.

Disappointing results were seen in previous studies looking at trastuzumab in lung cancer patients, and in those trials, patients were selected on the basis of HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). “More recent studies have again confirmed that HER2 IHC is not the ideal biomarker in lung cancers,” the researchers wrote.

The 18-patient cohort in this study was part of a larger, investigator-initiated basket trial. Cohorts not reported at this time involved patients with other HER2-amplified solid tumors, including bladder.

The study was supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation, Genentech, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Li reported disclosures related to Roche, Biosceptre International, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Mersana, Guardant Health, Genentech, Illumina, BioMed Valley Discoveries, AstraZeneca, and GRAIL. Several co-authors reported disclosures, including employment, with NantOmics, a developer of molecular profiling tools.

SOURCE: Li BT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 July 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.9777.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) has met a predefined efficacy endpoint in what investigators say is the first positive clinical trial in patients with advanced HER2-mutant lung cancers.

The HER2-targeted therapy produced a 44% overall response rate among 18 patients enrolled in the phase 2, investigator-initiated basket trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 months in this heavily pretreated group of patients, according to first author Bob T. Li, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his coauthors.

“This is important therapeutic progress in the context of more than a decade of negative clinical trials targeting HER2 in lung cancer,” the researchers wrote.

The patients (median age, 64 years; 72% female) had metastatic lung adenocarcinomas treated in 2016 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All patients had HER2-activating mutations identified by next-generation sequencing. They had received a median of two lines of prior therapy. Three of the 18 patients were treatment naive. Prior HER2-targeted therapy, including trastuzumab, was allowed.

All patients received intravenous infusions of T-DM1 at 3.6 mg/kg every 21 days until progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity.

Confirmed partial responses were seen in 8 patients (44%), while an additional 7 (39%) had stable disease, Dr. Li and his coauthors reported. Median PFS was 5 months overall and 6 months for responders, with the longest observed PFS being more than 11 months.

The treatment was well tolerated, with treatment-related adverse events mainly consisting of grade 1-2 infusion reactions, elevation of hepatic transaminases, and thrombocytopenia.

The rate of infusion reactions was higher than what was expected based on the experience with T-DM1 in breast cancer, though these reactions were generally mild and did not require discontinuation of the drug, which is approved for the treatment of HER2-amplified or –overexpressing metastatic breast cancer.

These findings have important implication for drug development in HER-2 mutant lung cancers, particularly as next-generation sequencing becomes more commonly used for initial tumor evaluation, Dr. Li and his coauthors noted.

“Just as the discovery of EGFR mutations eventually led to a plethora of approved oncogene-targeted therapies transforming the care of patients around the world, HER2-activating mutations similarly show promise as a therapeutic target,” they wrote.

Disappointing results were seen in previous studies looking at trastuzumab in lung cancer patients, and in those trials, patients were selected on the basis of HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). “More recent studies have again confirmed that HER2 IHC is not the ideal biomarker in lung cancers,” the researchers wrote.

The 18-patient cohort in this study was part of a larger, investigator-initiated basket trial. Cohorts not reported at this time involved patients with other HER2-amplified solid tumors, including bladder.

The study was supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation, Genentech, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Li reported disclosures related to Roche, Biosceptre International, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Mersana, Guardant Health, Genentech, Illumina, BioMed Valley Discoveries, AstraZeneca, and GRAIL. Several co-authors reported disclosures, including employment, with NantOmics, a developer of molecular profiling tools.

SOURCE: Li BT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 July 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.9777.

 

Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) has met a predefined efficacy endpoint in what investigators say is the first positive clinical trial in patients with advanced HER2-mutant lung cancers.

The HER2-targeted therapy produced a 44% overall response rate among 18 patients enrolled in the phase 2, investigator-initiated basket trial reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 months in this heavily pretreated group of patients, according to first author Bob T. Li, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and his coauthors.

“This is important therapeutic progress in the context of more than a decade of negative clinical trials targeting HER2 in lung cancer,” the researchers wrote.

The patients (median age, 64 years; 72% female) had metastatic lung adenocarcinomas treated in 2016 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All patients had HER2-activating mutations identified by next-generation sequencing. They had received a median of two lines of prior therapy. Three of the 18 patients were treatment naive. Prior HER2-targeted therapy, including trastuzumab, was allowed.

All patients received intravenous infusions of T-DM1 at 3.6 mg/kg every 21 days until progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity.

Confirmed partial responses were seen in 8 patients (44%), while an additional 7 (39%) had stable disease, Dr. Li and his coauthors reported. Median PFS was 5 months overall and 6 months for responders, with the longest observed PFS being more than 11 months.

The treatment was well tolerated, with treatment-related adverse events mainly consisting of grade 1-2 infusion reactions, elevation of hepatic transaminases, and thrombocytopenia.

The rate of infusion reactions was higher than what was expected based on the experience with T-DM1 in breast cancer, though these reactions were generally mild and did not require discontinuation of the drug, which is approved for the treatment of HER2-amplified or –overexpressing metastatic breast cancer.

These findings have important implication for drug development in HER-2 mutant lung cancers, particularly as next-generation sequencing becomes more commonly used for initial tumor evaluation, Dr. Li and his coauthors noted.

“Just as the discovery of EGFR mutations eventually led to a plethora of approved oncogene-targeted therapies transforming the care of patients around the world, HER2-activating mutations similarly show promise as a therapeutic target,” they wrote.

Disappointing results were seen in previous studies looking at trastuzumab in lung cancer patients, and in those trials, patients were selected on the basis of HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). “More recent studies have again confirmed that HER2 IHC is not the ideal biomarker in lung cancers,” the researchers wrote.

The 18-patient cohort in this study was part of a larger, investigator-initiated basket trial. Cohorts not reported at this time involved patients with other HER2-amplified solid tumors, including bladder.

The study was supported by the Conquer Cancer Foundation, Genentech, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Li reported disclosures related to Roche, Biosceptre International, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Mersana, Guardant Health, Genentech, Illumina, BioMed Valley Discoveries, AstraZeneca, and GRAIL. Several co-authors reported disclosures, including employment, with NantOmics, a developer of molecular profiling tools.

SOURCE: Li BT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 July 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.9777.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) demonstrated activity in advanced, HER2-mutant lung cancer.

Major finding: Confirmed partial responses were seen in 44% of patients. Median progression-free survival was 5 months.

Study details: Analysis of a cohort of 18 patients with HER2-mutant metastatic lung adenocarcinomas enrolled in a phase 2, investigator-initiated basket trial.

Disclosures: The Conquer Cancer Foundation, Genentech, and the National Institutes of Health supported the study. The researchers reported disclosures related to Roche, Biosceptre International, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Mersana, Guardant Health, Genentech, Illumina, BioMed Valley Discoveries, AstraZeneca, GRAIL, and NantOmics, among others.

Source: Li BT et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 July 10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.9777.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica