Breast Cancer ICYMI

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Learning that a family member has cancer can be devastating enough. Waiting to find out whether a loved one can afford their treatment takes the concern to another level.

That was the case for health policy expert Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, when her mother was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.

“There is this period where you are waiting to learn more about the cancer type and treatment options, and, of course, what might be covered by your health plan,” Dr. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “Knowing as much as I do about coverage for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, I was worried we would be in a situation where my mom had to spend over $15,000 out-of-pocket every year for one of these drugs.”

That $15,000 would have taken a large chunk of her retirement income and could make treatment unaffordable down the line.

This situation is hardly unique.

Many patients with cancer who rely on Medicare Part D face an impossible choice: “Your money or your life,” Dr. Dusetzina said.

In a recent perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Dusetzina detailed how subtle variations in people’s cancer type can have major implications for their out-of-pocket drug costs.

The difference in cost comes down to whether drugs are delivered as pills or infusions. Oral agents are almost always covered under a health plan’s pharmacy benefit (Medicare Part D), while physician-administered drugs are covered under the medical benefit (Medicare Part B).

According to Dr. Dusetzina, Medicare beneficiaries can face substantial, possibly “unlimited,” out-of-pocket costs for drugs covered under Part D if they don’t qualify for low-income subsidies. On the other hand, most beneficiaries receiving physician-administered drugs covered under Part B have supplemental coverage, which reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs.

Dr. Dusetzina broke down the expected first fill and yearly out-of-pocket costs associated with 10 oral cancer drugs covered under Part D. These costs ranged from $3,100 to $3,392 for a first fill and $10,592 to $14,067 for one year.

In a candid Twitter thread, Dr. Dusetzina opened up more about the issues highlighted in her piece: “This paper is about #PartD and Cancer. It is also about #pharmacoequity ... This is about how screwed you are if you need cancer treatment and your treatment happens to be covered by #PartD and not #PartB.”

“This is ARBITRARY and INEQUITABLE,” she added.

What’s “arbitrary,” Dr. Dusetzina explains, is that a rather small, chance distinction in cancer type or subtype can be the difference between affording and not affording treatment – and potentially between life and death.

Take the drug costs for two similar patients with breast cancer.

Patient A has hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer and thus would likely receive first-line therapy with two oral agents: an aromatase inhibitor and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, most often palbociclib (Ibrance).

For palbociclib alone, out-of-pocket costs would come to $3,100 for the first fill and nearly $10,600 over a year for a Part D beneficiary who doesn’t qualify for low-income subsidies.

Now take patient B who has HER2–positive metastatic breast cancer. This person would likely receive first-line treatment with trastuzumab (Herceptin), pertuzumab (Perjeta), and a taxane – a combination covered under Part B, which would be subject to an out-of-pocket cap or covered with limited or no cost sharing.

This difference in cancer subtype leaves some patients “paying substantially more for their cancer treatment than others, despite the same goal of extending or improving their lives,” Dr. Dusetzina writes.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Time-restricted eating reduced cardiovascular risk among older breast cancer survivors, a single-group feasibility study suggests.

The results show a 15% relative decline in cardiovascular risk, measured using the Framingham Risk Score, among at-risk breast cancer survivors (BCS) after only 8 weeks of following a time-restricted eating regimen, reported Amy A. Kirkham, PhD, assistant professor of kinesiology and physical education, University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“Time-restricted eating also significantly decreased visceral adipose tissue (VAT), which our team has previously found to accumulate rapidly with cardiotoxic treatment and predict later cardiac events among BCS,” the researchers add.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiac Onco.

Physical activity is one of the main modalities for lowering cardiovascular risk, but it is not feasible for everyone because of physical limitations and other factors, noted Dr. Kirkham.

“I became interested in time-restricted eating when I came across the literature, which has really exploded in the last 5 years, showing that it can reduce the number of cardiovascular risk factors,” she said in an interview.

“However, most of these populations studied have had cardiometabolic conditions, like obesity, type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and metabolic syndrome, and no one has looked at this” in either the population specifically at high risk for cardiovascular disease or in patients with overt cardiovascular disease, she said.

This approach is easy for patients to follow and is much simpler than many of the other dietary patterns, noted Dr. Kirkham. “It simply consists of having a start time or end time to your eating, so it is easy to prescribe,” she said. “You can see how that is much easier for a doctor to explain to a patient than trying to explain how to meet the physical activity guidelines each week.”

“This particular study definitely shows that time-restricted eating can decrease the calorie intake, and I think by decreasing the calorie intake you definitely would improve the body weight, which has numerous benefits irrespective of how we arrive at the end goal which is including the cardiovascular risk factors,” said Ajay Vallakati, MBBS, physician and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, commenting on the study.

“I think time-restricted eating is a tool we should look at, and a bigger study would help us to recommend this for our patients,” Dr. Vallakati told this news organization.

The study involved 22 participants. Mean age was 66 years. Mean body mass index was 31 ± 5 kg/m². In the cohort, 91% of participants were taking aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen at the time of the study, and 50% underwent left-sided radiation.

The study group included breast cancer survivors who had risk factors for cardiovascular disease mortality, including completion of cardiotoxic therapy, like anthracyclines, within 1-6 years, obesity/overweight, and older age, defined as 60 years of age or older.

Participants were allowed to eat freely between 12 PM and 8 PM on weekdays and any time during weekends. Outside of the allotted hours, they could only drink black coffee, water, or black tea for the 8-week study period. They were not under any other physical activity or dietary restrictions.

All were provided with behavioral support, such as check-in phone calls with the research team at 1-, 3-, and 6-week follow-up and pre-interventional calls from a registered dietitian. During weekdays, they also received automated text messages twice a day asking what time they started and stopped eating.

Irritability and headaches were among the transient, minor symptoms reported, the researchers say. The study group responded to nearly all of the text messages that they received from the researchers. The participants also followed through with the fast for a median 98% of the prescribed days by fasting for 16 or more hours.

The results showed that after 8 weeks, median Framingham cardiovascular risk declined from 10.9% to 8.6%, a 15% relative reduction (P = .037). Modifiable aspects of Framingham, such as systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein, remained relatively consistent overall, however, suggesting variation between individuals in the etiology of the risk decline.

Caloric intake fell by a median of 450 kcal, representing a relative reduction of about 22% (P < .001), they note.

The findings also showed a decline in median derived whole-body fat mass (–0.9 kg; P = .046), body mass (–1.0 kg; P = .025), and mean MRI-derived VAT (–5%; P = .009).

Other data showed that the average BMI remained the same (P = .10).

At the beginning of the study, 68% of the cohort was considered cardiometabolically unhealthy, given the benchmarks for pharmacologic preventive therapy of cardiovascular risk or metabolic syndrome based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society recommendations.

Notably, 53% of the cohort was no longer classified as meeting the criteria for metabolic syndrome or for the therapeutic treatment of cardiovascular risk after the intervention.

The study’s limitations include its short duration, selection bias, and that it did not involve a control group, the researchers acknowledge.

“Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the health benefits, including potential health care cost savings and safety of longer-term time-restricted eating,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Vallakati and Dr. Kirkham report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.

“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.

Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).

Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.

“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.

That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.

Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.

A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.

“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.

Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).

Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.

“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.

That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.

Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.

A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.

“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.

Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).

Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.

“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.

That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.

Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.

The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.

The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.

Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.

However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... The preventive effect of eldecalcitol on development of type 2 diabetes in a prediabetic population was seen especially among participants with insulin insufficiency,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
 

‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials

The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”

The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.

But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.  

Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.

“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.  

He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”

Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D

Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”

He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”

Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
 

DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance

The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.

During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).

However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).

In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).

“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.

Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.

The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.

The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.

Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.

However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... The preventive effect of eldecalcitol on development of type 2 diabetes in a prediabetic population was seen especially among participants with insulin insufficiency,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
 

‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials

The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”

The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.

But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.  

Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.

“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.  

He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”

Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D

Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”

He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”

Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
 

DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance

The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.

During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).

However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).

In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).

“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.

Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.

The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.

The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.

Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.

However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... The preventive effect of eldecalcitol on development of type 2 diabetes in a prediabetic population was seen especially among participants with insulin insufficiency,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
 

‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials

The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”

The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.

But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.  

Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.

“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.  

He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”

Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D

Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”

He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”

Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
 

DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance

The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.

During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).

However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).

In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).

“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.

Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).

The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.

“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.

“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.

The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.

“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
 

Consensus on 69 statements

The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.

Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:

• Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
• High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
• Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
• A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
• Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
• Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.

Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery

Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.

Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.

“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.

However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.

Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”

“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.

“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.

Need for more randomized trials

Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”

Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.

The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out. 

Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”

This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of  Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.

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

Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).

The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.

“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.

“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.

The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.

“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
 

Consensus on 69 statements

The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.

Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:

• Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
• High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
• Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
• A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
• Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
• Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.

Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery

Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.

Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.

“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.

However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.

Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”

“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.

“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.

Need for more randomized trials

Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”

Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.

The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out. 

Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”

This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of  Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.

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

Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).

The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.

“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.

“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.

The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.

“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
 

Consensus on 69 statements

The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.

Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:

• Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
• High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
• Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
• A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
• Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
• Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.

Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery

Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.

Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.

“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.

However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.

Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”

“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.

“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.

Need for more randomized trials

Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”

Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.

The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out. 

Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”

This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of  Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.

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

A subset of patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may have primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), and the majority will develop progressive disease and secondary resistance at some point during their treatment course. The phase 3 PEARL trial randomly assigned 601 postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- mBC that was resistant to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy to capecitabine or palbociclib + ET (with exemestane or fulvestrant). There was no significant difference in OS between the palbociclib + ET and capecitabine arms in both the wild-type–ESR1 population (median OS 37.2 vs 34.8 months; adjusted HR 1.06; P = .683) and overall population (median OS 32.6 vs 30.9 months, adjusted HR 1.00; P = .995) (Martin et al). The randomized phase 2 Young-PEARL trial demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with palbociclib + exemestane + leuprolide vs capecitabine among 189 premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC and relapse or progression on prior tamoxifen therapy (median PFS 20.1 vs 14.4 months; HR 0.659; P = .0235).² In this study, half of the patients were treatment-naive in the metastatic setting and had no prior aromatase inhibitor exposure. Considering the similar survival outcomes seen in PEARL in postmenopausal patients, the choice of therapy should include consideration of other variables, such as side effects, comorbidities, and OS results, which will be further informative in the premenopausal population.
 

Poorer outcomes associated with breast cancer in younger women (< 45 years of age) are driven by multiple factors, including delayed diagnosis, more aggressive biologic subtypes, and advanced stage at presentation. Survival outcomes for breast cancer diagnosed and treated during pregnancy are similar to nonpregnant patients. Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) is a distinct entity, defined as breast cancer that is diagnosed within the first 5 years after childbirth, and is more likely to have inferior outcomes. A pooled data set from the Colorado Young Women Breast cohort and the Breast Cancer Health Disparities study (n = 2519 cases) showed that among women diagnosed at < 45 years, those who were nulliparous had better OS vs those with PPBC (HR 0.61), with a more prominent effect among stage I breast cancers (HR 0.30) and in very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years (HR 0.44) (Shagisultanova et al). At 15 years of follow-up, among very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years, those with PPBC had an OS of 63% compared with 71% for nulliparous women and 67% for women who had given birth more than 5 years ago. There are various factors that likely contribute to poorer outcomes seen with PPBC, including mammary gland involution and a lactation effect. Research efforts focused on aspects, such as the tumor immune microenvironment in the postpartum state, lactation studies, and perhaps identification of a postpartum signature, will enhance our understanding with the goal to optimize outcomes for young women with PPBC.^[3]
 

The treatment of male breast cancer in the advanced or metastatic setting is largely extrapolated from female studies. Registry data have shown differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between metastatic male breast cancer (mMBC) and metastatic female breast cancer (mFBC). For example, there is a higher proportion of simultaneous lung and bone involvement and a lower proportion of HER2+/HR- triple-negative subtypes, and simultaneous bone and liver metastasis in mMBC vs mFBC.⁴ An analysis including 207 male patients with breast cancer with bone metastases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database demonstrated 3-year OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of 36.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Inferior OS and CSS were associated with age > 60 years (for OS: HR 1.671; P = .014; for CSS: HR 1.806; P = .009), triple-negative subtype (for OS: HR 3.029, P = .003; for CSS: HR 3.025, P = .004), and lack of surgery (for OS: HR 1.746; P = .012; for CSS: HR 1.734; P = .023), whereas brain metastasis had a worse OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (Zhou et al). These findings highlight the importance of getting a better understanding of mMBC disease biology and the opportunity to tailor treatment approaches for this population of patients.
 

Additional References
 

1. Waks AG, Desai NV, Li T, et al. A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:63. Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00429-7
2. Park YH, Kim TY, Kim GM, et al; Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG). Palbociclib plus exemestane with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus capecitabine in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-10): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(12):1750-1759. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30565-0
3. Lefrère H, Lenaerts L, Borges VF, et al. Postpartum breast cancer: mechanisms underlying its worse prognosis, treatment implications, and fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:412-422. Doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002072
4. Xie J, Ying YY, Xu B, Li Y, Zhang X, Li C. Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919889003. Doi: 10.1177/1758835919889003

A subset of patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may have primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), and the majority will develop progressive disease and secondary resistance at some point during their treatment course. The phase 3 PEARL trial randomly assigned 601 postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- mBC that was resistant to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy to capecitabine or palbociclib + ET (with exemestane or fulvestrant). There was no significant difference in OS between the palbociclib + ET and capecitabine arms in both the wild-type–ESR1 population (median OS 37.2 vs 34.8 months; adjusted HR 1.06; P = .683) and overall population (median OS 32.6 vs 30.9 months, adjusted HR 1.00; P = .995) (Martin et al). The randomized phase 2 Young-PEARL trial demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with palbociclib + exemestane + leuprolide vs capecitabine among 189 premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC and relapse or progression on prior tamoxifen therapy (median PFS 20.1 vs 14.4 months; HR 0.659; P = .0235).² In this study, half of the patients were treatment-naive in the metastatic setting and had no prior aromatase inhibitor exposure. Considering the similar survival outcomes seen in PEARL in postmenopausal patients, the choice of therapy should include consideration of other variables, such as side effects, comorbidities, and OS results, which will be further informative in the premenopausal population.
 

Poorer outcomes associated with breast cancer in younger women (< 45 years of age) are driven by multiple factors, including delayed diagnosis, more aggressive biologic subtypes, and advanced stage at presentation. Survival outcomes for breast cancer diagnosed and treated during pregnancy are similar to nonpregnant patients. Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) is a distinct entity, defined as breast cancer that is diagnosed within the first 5 years after childbirth, and is more likely to have inferior outcomes. A pooled data set from the Colorado Young Women Breast cohort and the Breast Cancer Health Disparities study (n = 2519 cases) showed that among women diagnosed at < 45 years, those who were nulliparous had better OS vs those with PPBC (HR 0.61), with a more prominent effect among stage I breast cancers (HR 0.30) and in very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years (HR 0.44) (Shagisultanova et al). At 15 years of follow-up, among very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years, those with PPBC had an OS of 63% compared with 71% for nulliparous women and 67% for women who had given birth more than 5 years ago. There are various factors that likely contribute to poorer outcomes seen with PPBC, including mammary gland involution and a lactation effect. Research efforts focused on aspects, such as the tumor immune microenvironment in the postpartum state, lactation studies, and perhaps identification of a postpartum signature, will enhance our understanding with the goal to optimize outcomes for young women with PPBC.^[3]
 

The treatment of male breast cancer in the advanced or metastatic setting is largely extrapolated from female studies. Registry data have shown differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between metastatic male breast cancer (mMBC) and metastatic female breast cancer (mFBC). For example, there is a higher proportion of simultaneous lung and bone involvement and a lower proportion of HER2+/HR- triple-negative subtypes, and simultaneous bone and liver metastasis in mMBC vs mFBC.⁴ An analysis including 207 male patients with breast cancer with bone metastases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database demonstrated 3-year OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of 36.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Inferior OS and CSS were associated with age > 60 years (for OS: HR 1.671; P = .014; for CSS: HR 1.806; P = .009), triple-negative subtype (for OS: HR 3.029, P = .003; for CSS: HR 3.025, P = .004), and lack of surgery (for OS: HR 1.746; P = .012; for CSS: HR 1.734; P = .023), whereas brain metastasis had a worse OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (Zhou et al). These findings highlight the importance of getting a better understanding of mMBC disease biology and the opportunity to tailor treatment approaches for this population of patients.
 

Additional References
 

1. Waks AG, Desai NV, Li T, et al. A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:63. Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00429-7
2. Park YH, Kim TY, Kim GM, et al; Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG). Palbociclib plus exemestane with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus capecitabine in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-10): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(12):1750-1759. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30565-0
3. Lefrère H, Lenaerts L, Borges VF, et al. Postpartum breast cancer: mechanisms underlying its worse prognosis, treatment implications, and fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:412-422. Doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002072
4. Xie J, Ying YY, Xu B, Li Y, Zhang X, Li C. Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919889003. Doi: 10.1177/1758835919889003

A subset of patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may have primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), and the majority will develop progressive disease and secondary resistance at some point during their treatment course. The phase 3 PEARL trial randomly assigned 601 postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- mBC that was resistant to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy to capecitabine or palbociclib + ET (with exemestane or fulvestrant). There was no significant difference in OS between the palbociclib + ET and capecitabine arms in both the wild-type–ESR1 population (median OS 37.2 vs 34.8 months; adjusted HR 1.06; P = .683) and overall population (median OS 32.6 vs 30.9 months, adjusted HR 1.00; P = .995) (Martin et al). The randomized phase 2 Young-PEARL trial demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with palbociclib + exemestane + leuprolide vs capecitabine among 189 premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC and relapse or progression on prior tamoxifen therapy (median PFS 20.1 vs 14.4 months; HR 0.659; P = .0235).² In this study, half of the patients were treatment-naive in the metastatic setting and had no prior aromatase inhibitor exposure. Considering the similar survival outcomes seen in PEARL in postmenopausal patients, the choice of therapy should include consideration of other variables, such as side effects, comorbidities, and OS results, which will be further informative in the premenopausal population.
 

Poorer outcomes associated with breast cancer in younger women (< 45 years of age) are driven by multiple factors, including delayed diagnosis, more aggressive biologic subtypes, and advanced stage at presentation. Survival outcomes for breast cancer diagnosed and treated during pregnancy are similar to nonpregnant patients. Postpartum breast cancer (PPBC) is a distinct entity, defined as breast cancer that is diagnosed within the first 5 years after childbirth, and is more likely to have inferior outcomes. A pooled data set from the Colorado Young Women Breast cohort and the Breast Cancer Health Disparities study (n = 2519 cases) showed that among women diagnosed at < 45 years, those who were nulliparous had better OS vs those with PPBC (HR 0.61), with a more prominent effect among stage I breast cancers (HR 0.30) and in very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years (HR 0.44) (Shagisultanova et al). At 15 years of follow-up, among very young women diagnosed at ≤ 35 years, those with PPBC had an OS of 63% compared with 71% for nulliparous women and 67% for women who had given birth more than 5 years ago. There are various factors that likely contribute to poorer outcomes seen with PPBC, including mammary gland involution and a lactation effect. Research efforts focused on aspects, such as the tumor immune microenvironment in the postpartum state, lactation studies, and perhaps identification of a postpartum signature, will enhance our understanding with the goal to optimize outcomes for young women with PPBC.^[3]
 

The treatment of male breast cancer in the advanced or metastatic setting is largely extrapolated from female studies. Registry data have shown differences in clinicopathologic characteristics between metastatic male breast cancer (mMBC) and metastatic female breast cancer (mFBC). For example, there is a higher proportion of simultaneous lung and bone involvement and a lower proportion of HER2+/HR- triple-negative subtypes, and simultaneous bone and liver metastasis in mMBC vs mFBC.⁴ An analysis including 207 male patients with breast cancer with bone metastases in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database demonstrated 3-year OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates of 36.7% and 39.5%, respectively. Inferior OS and CSS were associated with age > 60 years (for OS: HR 1.671; P = .014; for CSS: HR 1.806; P = .009), triple-negative subtype (for OS: HR 3.029, P = .003; for CSS: HR 3.025, P = .004), and lack of surgery (for OS: HR 1.746; P = .012; for CSS: HR 1.734; P = .023), whereas brain metastasis had a worse OS (HR 2.045; P = .028) but not CSS (Zhou et al). These findings highlight the importance of getting a better understanding of mMBC disease biology and the opportunity to tailor treatment approaches for this population of patients.
 

Additional References
 

1. Waks AG, Desai NV, Li T, et al. A prospective trial of treatment de-escalation following neoadjuvant paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022;8:63. Doi: 10.1038/s41523-022-00429-7
2. Park YH, Kim TY, Kim GM, et al; Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG). Palbociclib plus exemestane with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus capecitabine in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-10): A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(12):1750-1759. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30565-0
3. Lefrère H, Lenaerts L, Borges VF, et al. Postpartum breast cancer: mechanisms underlying its worse prognosis, treatment implications, and fertility preservation. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:412-422. Doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002072
4. Xie J, Ying YY, Xu B, Li Y, Zhang X, Li C. Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919889003. Doi: 10.1177/1758835919889003

In the largest investigation into the issue to date, metformin did not improve survival of patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer when added to standard adjuvant treatments.

Metformin, a common option for patients with type 2 diabetes, had previously been shown in observational studies to be associated with improved survival of cancer patients. Those studies mostly involved older patients with cancer who also had diabetes.

These findings have led to trials of the use of metformin for patients with cancer who do not have diabetes, but two lung cancer trials found no effect on survival.

Now this latest trial in breast cancer, which included 3,649 patients with hormone receptor–positive or –negative disease – who did not have diabetes – also found that metformin had no effect on survival.

These results “tell us that metformin is not effective against the most common types of breast cancer and any off-label use [of] this drug for the treatment of these common types of breast cancer should be stopped,” lead investigator and medical oncologist Pamela Goodwin, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto, said in a press release.

The negative results “underscore the need for well-conducted randomized trials” before observational studies are put into practice, Dr. Goodwin and her team said.

However, the investigators cautioned against extrapolating their results to patients with diabetes, noting that “because metformin is effective in type 2 diabetes, the results ... should not affect the use of metformin” in breast cancer patients who have diabetes.

The study was published online in JAMA.

Patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2013 while undergoing adjuvant treatment – chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and/or others – following complete resection of T1-3, N0-3 tumors. They were almost exclusively women (mean age, 52.4 years), and almost 90% were non-Hispanic White. They were primarily from the United States and Canada, with some patients from the United Kingdom and Switzerland.

Patients were randomly assigned equally to receive either metformin 850 mg twice daily or placebo for 5 years. Median follow-up was about 8 years.

Among 2,533 patients with estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive disease, the incidence of invasive disease–free survival events was 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group, vs. 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01, P = .93). There were 1.46 deaths per 100 patient-years with metformin, vs. 1.32 with placebo (HR, 1.10, P = .47).

Metformin was stopped early at about 3 years for the 1,116 hormone receptor–negative patients after futility was declared on interim analysis. The incidence of invasive disease–free survival events was 3.58 with metformin, vs. 3.60 with placebo per 100 patient-years (HR, 1.01, P = .92). There were 1.91 deaths per 100 patient-years in the metformin arm, vs. 2.15 in the group that received placebo (HR, 0.89, P = .46).

However, the findings were different and suggested a signal among the small subset of patients (17% of the total) who had HER2-positive disease. There were 1.93 disease-free survival events with metformin per 100 patient-years, vs. 3.05 events with placebo (HR, 0.64, P = .03), and 0.78 deaths in the metformin arm, vs. 1.43 deaths per 100 patient-years in the placebo arm (HR, 0.54, P = .04).

The benefit seen in this HER2-postive subgroup was limited to patients with any C allele of the rs11212617 single-nucleotide variant.

This was an exploratory analysis, so the results need to be confirmed in a randomized trial, but it’s possible that metformin “could provide an additional treatment option for HER2-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Goodwin said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with metformin (21.5% vs. 17.5%). The most common such events were hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs. 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs. 0.8%).

The study was conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group and was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Dr. Goodwin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors reported ties to Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche, and a number of other companies. One coauthor is an AstraZeneca employee.

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

In the largest investigation into the issue to date, metformin did not improve survival of patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer when added to standard adjuvant treatments.

Metformin, a common option for patients with type 2 diabetes, had previously been shown in observational studies to be associated with improved survival of cancer patients. Those studies mostly involved older patients with cancer who also had diabetes.

These findings have led to trials of the use of metformin for patients with cancer who do not have diabetes, but two lung cancer trials found no effect on survival.

Now this latest trial in breast cancer, which included 3,649 patients with hormone receptor–positive or –negative disease – who did not have diabetes – also found that metformin had no effect on survival.

These results “tell us that metformin is not effective against the most common types of breast cancer and any off-label use [of] this drug for the treatment of these common types of breast cancer should be stopped,” lead investigator and medical oncologist Pamela Goodwin, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto, said in a press release.

The negative results “underscore the need for well-conducted randomized trials” before observational studies are put into practice, Dr. Goodwin and her team said.

However, the investigators cautioned against extrapolating their results to patients with diabetes, noting that “because metformin is effective in type 2 diabetes, the results ... should not affect the use of metformin” in breast cancer patients who have diabetes.

The study was published online in JAMA.

Patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2013 while undergoing adjuvant treatment – chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and/or others – following complete resection of T1-3, N0-3 tumors. They were almost exclusively women (mean age, 52.4 years), and almost 90% were non-Hispanic White. They were primarily from the United States and Canada, with some patients from the United Kingdom and Switzerland.

Patients were randomly assigned equally to receive either metformin 850 mg twice daily or placebo for 5 years. Median follow-up was about 8 years.

Among 2,533 patients with estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive disease, the incidence of invasive disease–free survival events was 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group, vs. 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01, P = .93). There were 1.46 deaths per 100 patient-years with metformin, vs. 1.32 with placebo (HR, 1.10, P = .47).

Metformin was stopped early at about 3 years for the 1,116 hormone receptor–negative patients after futility was declared on interim analysis. The incidence of invasive disease–free survival events was 3.58 with metformin, vs. 3.60 with placebo per 100 patient-years (HR, 1.01, P = .92). There were 1.91 deaths per 100 patient-years in the metformin arm, vs. 2.15 in the group that received placebo (HR, 0.89, P = .46).

However, the findings were different and suggested a signal among the small subset of patients (17% of the total) who had HER2-positive disease. There were 1.93 disease-free survival events with metformin per 100 patient-years, vs. 3.05 events with placebo (HR, 0.64, P = .03), and 0.78 deaths in the metformin arm, vs. 1.43 deaths per 100 patient-years in the placebo arm (HR, 0.54, P = .04).

The benefit seen in this HER2-postive subgroup was limited to patients with any C allele of the rs11212617 single-nucleotide variant.

This was an exploratory analysis, so the results need to be confirmed in a randomized trial, but it’s possible that metformin “could provide an additional treatment option for HER2-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Goodwin said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with metformin (21.5% vs. 17.5%). The most common such events were hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs. 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs. 0.8%).

The study was conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group and was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Dr. Goodwin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors reported ties to Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche, and a number of other companies. One coauthor is an AstraZeneca employee.

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

In the largest investigation into the issue to date, metformin did not improve survival of patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer when added to standard adjuvant treatments.

Metformin, a common option for patients with type 2 diabetes, had previously been shown in observational studies to be associated with improved survival of cancer patients. Those studies mostly involved older patients with cancer who also had diabetes.

These findings have led to trials of the use of metformin for patients with cancer who do not have diabetes, but two lung cancer trials found no effect on survival.

Now this latest trial in breast cancer, which included 3,649 patients with hormone receptor–positive or –negative disease – who did not have diabetes – also found that metformin had no effect on survival.

These results “tell us that metformin is not effective against the most common types of breast cancer and any off-label use [of] this drug for the treatment of these common types of breast cancer should be stopped,” lead investigator and medical oncologist Pamela Goodwin, MD, a breast cancer researcher at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto, said in a press release.

The negative results “underscore the need for well-conducted randomized trials” before observational studies are put into practice, Dr. Goodwin and her team said.

However, the investigators cautioned against extrapolating their results to patients with diabetes, noting that “because metformin is effective in type 2 diabetes, the results ... should not affect the use of metformin” in breast cancer patients who have diabetes.

The study was published online in JAMA.

Patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2013 while undergoing adjuvant treatment – chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and/or others – following complete resection of T1-3, N0-3 tumors. They were almost exclusively women (mean age, 52.4 years), and almost 90% were non-Hispanic White. They were primarily from the United States and Canada, with some patients from the United Kingdom and Switzerland.

Patients were randomly assigned equally to receive either metformin 850 mg twice daily or placebo for 5 years. Median follow-up was about 8 years.

Among 2,533 patients with estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive disease, the incidence of invasive disease–free survival events was 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group, vs. 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01, P = .93). There were 1.46 deaths per 100 patient-years with metformin, vs. 1.32 with placebo (HR, 1.10, P = .47).

Metformin was stopped early at about 3 years for the 1,116 hormone receptor–negative patients after futility was declared on interim analysis. The incidence of invasive disease–free survival events was 3.58 with metformin, vs. 3.60 with placebo per 100 patient-years (HR, 1.01, P = .92). There were 1.91 deaths per 100 patient-years in the metformin arm, vs. 2.15 in the group that received placebo (HR, 0.89, P = .46).

However, the findings were different and suggested a signal among the small subset of patients (17% of the total) who had HER2-positive disease. There were 1.93 disease-free survival events with metformin per 100 patient-years, vs. 3.05 events with placebo (HR, 0.64, P = .03), and 0.78 deaths in the metformin arm, vs. 1.43 deaths per 100 patient-years in the placebo arm (HR, 0.54, P = .04).

The benefit seen in this HER2-postive subgroup was limited to patients with any C allele of the rs11212617 single-nucleotide variant.

This was an exploratory analysis, so the results need to be confirmed in a randomized trial, but it’s possible that metformin “could provide an additional treatment option for HER2-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Goodwin said.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with metformin (21.5% vs. 17.5%). The most common such events were hypertension (2.4% vs. 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs. 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs. 0.8%).

The study was conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group and was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Dr. Goodwin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors reported ties to Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche, and a number of other companies. One coauthor is an AstraZeneca employee.

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

Male breast cancer is linked to infertility, according to a new case-control study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London. The report follows other studies that generally failed to identify a statistically significant association, but the resources of Great Britain’s National Health Service made it possible to achieve greater power than previous efforts.

“It’s a very difficult disease to study because it’s about 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. To do the equivalent study, you either have to make your study 100 times bigger, or think laterally and approach it a different way. (That’s) why we did a case control study where you identify the cases and find controls, rather than wait for men to develop breast cancer,” said Michael Edwin Jones, PhD, the lead author of the study, which was published online in Breast Cancer Research.

The new study found that men who self-reported infertility had a doubled risk of breast cancer, while there was no difference if the fertility was linked to their female partner. Sex hormones are known to play a key role in female breast cancer, and they have a suspected role in male breast cancer as well, though it’s hard to pin down because there is no concentrated source of exposure like hormone therapy or activity from the ovary to cause spiked levels. “It’s more subtle in men, but there’s a reason to think it’s important,” Dr. Jones said.

Although the results hint at a possible role of sex hormones, the research can’t confirm that. Blood draws were taken from participants, but many were conducted after treatment had begun, leading to inconsistent results. Dr. Jones called for more research into biological mechanisms that might explain the increased risk, and suggested that such efforts could lead to a better understanding of breast cancer overall, since the disease in men is not effected by factors like pregnancy and menopause.

Historically, few clinical trials for breast cancer drugs included men, and this has resulted in few approved treatments. However, the impact of breast cancer on men is increasingly being recognized, and most such trials now accept male patients. The Food and Drug Administration has even produced a guidance document for inclusion of men in development of breast cancer drugs, which states that men should be excluded only if there is a clear scientific rationale. When there are too few male participants to draw direct conclusions, it may be possible to extrapolate findings in women to men for FDA approval, provided the mechanism of action suggests that there should be no difference in efficacy.

The Breast Cancer Now study included 1,998 cases and 1,597 controls, who were asked about infertility and whether they had children. Men with male-origin infertility had a higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.49), but not men who reported female-origin infertility (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45). There was also a heightened risk among men who had not fathered children versus those who had (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86).

The association was statistically significant for invasive tumors (OR, 1.96; P = .02), but only a trend was observed for in situ breast cancer (OR, 1.72; P = .39). A possible explanation is that diagnosis of in situ breast cancer is less common than invasive cancer in men, which could have led to the study being underpowered. “Unfortunately, there were too few in-situ breast cancers to allow us to say anything definitive,” said Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones has no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Breast Cancer Now.

Male breast cancer is linked to infertility, according to a new case-control study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London. The report follows other studies that generally failed to identify a statistically significant association, but the resources of Great Britain’s National Health Service made it possible to achieve greater power than previous efforts.

“It’s a very difficult disease to study because it’s about 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. To do the equivalent study, you either have to make your study 100 times bigger, or think laterally and approach it a different way. (That’s) why we did a case control study where you identify the cases and find controls, rather than wait for men to develop breast cancer,” said Michael Edwin Jones, PhD, the lead author of the study, which was published online in Breast Cancer Research.

The new study found that men who self-reported infertility had a doubled risk of breast cancer, while there was no difference if the fertility was linked to their female partner. Sex hormones are known to play a key role in female breast cancer, and they have a suspected role in male breast cancer as well, though it’s hard to pin down because there is no concentrated source of exposure like hormone therapy or activity from the ovary to cause spiked levels. “It’s more subtle in men, but there’s a reason to think it’s important,” Dr. Jones said.

Although the results hint at a possible role of sex hormones, the research can’t confirm that. Blood draws were taken from participants, but many were conducted after treatment had begun, leading to inconsistent results. Dr. Jones called for more research into biological mechanisms that might explain the increased risk, and suggested that such efforts could lead to a better understanding of breast cancer overall, since the disease in men is not effected by factors like pregnancy and menopause.

Historically, few clinical trials for breast cancer drugs included men, and this has resulted in few approved treatments. However, the impact of breast cancer on men is increasingly being recognized, and most such trials now accept male patients. The Food and Drug Administration has even produced a guidance document for inclusion of men in development of breast cancer drugs, which states that men should be excluded only if there is a clear scientific rationale. When there are too few male participants to draw direct conclusions, it may be possible to extrapolate findings in women to men for FDA approval, provided the mechanism of action suggests that there should be no difference in efficacy.

The Breast Cancer Now study included 1,998 cases and 1,597 controls, who were asked about infertility and whether they had children. Men with male-origin infertility had a higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.49), but not men who reported female-origin infertility (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45). There was also a heightened risk among men who had not fathered children versus those who had (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86).

The association was statistically significant for invasive tumors (OR, 1.96; P = .02), but only a trend was observed for in situ breast cancer (OR, 1.72; P = .39). A possible explanation is that diagnosis of in situ breast cancer is less common than invasive cancer in men, which could have led to the study being underpowered. “Unfortunately, there were too few in-situ breast cancers to allow us to say anything definitive,” said Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones has no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Breast Cancer Now.

Male breast cancer is linked to infertility, according to a new case-control study from the Institute of Cancer Research in London. The report follows other studies that generally failed to identify a statistically significant association, but the resources of Great Britain’s National Health Service made it possible to achieve greater power than previous efforts.

“It’s a very difficult disease to study because it’s about 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. To do the equivalent study, you either have to make your study 100 times bigger, or think laterally and approach it a different way. (That’s) why we did a case control study where you identify the cases and find controls, rather than wait for men to develop breast cancer,” said Michael Edwin Jones, PhD, the lead author of the study, which was published online in Breast Cancer Research.

The new study found that men who self-reported infertility had a doubled risk of breast cancer, while there was no difference if the fertility was linked to their female partner. Sex hormones are known to play a key role in female breast cancer, and they have a suspected role in male breast cancer as well, though it’s hard to pin down because there is no concentrated source of exposure like hormone therapy or activity from the ovary to cause spiked levels. “It’s more subtle in men, but there’s a reason to think it’s important,” Dr. Jones said.

Although the results hint at a possible role of sex hormones, the research can’t confirm that. Blood draws were taken from participants, but many were conducted after treatment had begun, leading to inconsistent results. Dr. Jones called for more research into biological mechanisms that might explain the increased risk, and suggested that such efforts could lead to a better understanding of breast cancer overall, since the disease in men is not effected by factors like pregnancy and menopause.

Historically, few clinical trials for breast cancer drugs included men, and this has resulted in few approved treatments. However, the impact of breast cancer on men is increasingly being recognized, and most such trials now accept male patients. The Food and Drug Administration has even produced a guidance document for inclusion of men in development of breast cancer drugs, which states that men should be excluded only if there is a clear scientific rationale. When there are too few male participants to draw direct conclusions, it may be possible to extrapolate findings in women to men for FDA approval, provided the mechanism of action suggests that there should be no difference in efficacy.

The Breast Cancer Now study included 1,998 cases and 1,597 controls, who were asked about infertility and whether they had children. Men with male-origin infertility had a higher risk of breast cancer (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-3.49), but not men who reported female-origin infertility (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45). There was also a heightened risk among men who had not fathered children versus those who had (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86).

The association was statistically significant for invasive tumors (OR, 1.96; P = .02), but only a trend was observed for in situ breast cancer (OR, 1.72; P = .39). A possible explanation is that diagnosis of in situ breast cancer is less common than invasive cancer in men, which could have led to the study being underpowered. “Unfortunately, there were too few in-situ breast cancers to allow us to say anything definitive,” said Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones has no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by Breast Cancer Now.

Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – the new twincretin approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – was priced by Lilly, the company that will market the drug, at a list price of $974.33 for four weekly doses regardless of dose size, a cost that adds up to about $12,666 per year, according to a statement made on May 20 by a Lilly spokesperson.

This price puts tirzepatide, which combines the activity of two of the primary human incretins in one molecule, roughly in the same ballpark as what might be its main competitor, semaglutide (Ozempic) for type 2 diabetes, which retails at many U.S. pharmacies for about $925 for four weekly doses, or about $12,025 per year, although Ozempic’s posted retail price is about $100 higher for four doses.

According to the Lilly spokesperson, discount programs could reduce the monthly out-of-pocket cost for patients to as little as $25.

Tirzepatide, which received approval from the FDA on May 13, is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, which is indicated as Wegovy for weight loss in patients with obesity regardless of diabetes status.

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

Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – the new twincretin approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – was priced by Lilly, the company that will market the drug, at a list price of $974.33 for four weekly doses regardless of dose size, a cost that adds up to about $12,666 per year, according to a statement made on May 20 by a Lilly spokesperson.

This price puts tirzepatide, which combines the activity of two of the primary human incretins in one molecule, roughly in the same ballpark as what might be its main competitor, semaglutide (Ozempic) for type 2 diabetes, which retails at many U.S. pharmacies for about $925 for four weekly doses, or about $12,025 per year, although Ozempic’s posted retail price is about $100 higher for four doses.

According to the Lilly spokesperson, discount programs could reduce the monthly out-of-pocket cost for patients to as little as $25.

Tirzepatide, which received approval from the FDA on May 13, is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, which is indicated as Wegovy for weight loss in patients with obesity regardless of diabetes status.

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

Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – the new twincretin approved by the Food and Drug Administration for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes – was priced by Lilly, the company that will market the drug, at a list price of $974.33 for four weekly doses regardless of dose size, a cost that adds up to about $12,666 per year, according to a statement made on May 20 by a Lilly spokesperson.

This price puts tirzepatide, which combines the activity of two of the primary human incretins in one molecule, roughly in the same ballpark as what might be its main competitor, semaglutide (Ozempic) for type 2 diabetes, which retails at many U.S. pharmacies for about $925 for four weekly doses, or about $12,025 per year, although Ozempic’s posted retail price is about $100 higher for four doses.

According to the Lilly spokesperson, discount programs could reduce the monthly out-of-pocket cost for patients to as little as $25.

Tirzepatide, which received approval from the FDA on May 13, is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, which is indicated as Wegovy for weight loss in patients with obesity regardless of diabetes status.

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