Clinical Endocrinology News

SEATTLE – Tissue accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is associated with the presence of hypercortisolism, suggesting a potential future noninvasive method to assist in the diagnosis of Cushing syndrome, new research suggests.
 

Tissue accumulation of AGEs – harmful compounds formed by glycation of macromolecules – has been implicated in aging, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Now, in a new single-center prospective study, a group of 208 patients with endogenous hypercortisolism was found to have significantly higher median tissue AGE levels than 103 reference subjects without hypercortisolism.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology by Rashi Sandooja, MD, an endocrinology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Diagnosis of endogenous hypercortisolism can be quite challenging. Often patients can have nonspecific symptoms with biochemical testing being equivocal. In these situations, new biomarkers of hypercortisolism such as AGE measurement could potentially be useful,” Dr. Sandooja said in an interview.

“After proper validation, it could help clinicians in cases which may not be straightforward and could serve as an additional” instrument in the toolkit to reach a conclusive diagnosis, she added.

Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, said in an interview: “I think it’s very exciting data. ... I envision its use in mild autonomous cortisol secretion, where there are not a lot of overt Cushing features but they may have a small adrenal mass. ... It might be used to guide care when there’s not a clear-cut answer.”

However, he cautioned that more validation is needed to determine the correlates of AGEs by different etiologies and magnitudes of cortisol excess.

Moreover, “skin can become thin in hypercortisolism, so is [the reader device] just detecting it more with skin testing? I think a blood test for validation would be a very good next step,” added Dr. Kotwal, who is an assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
 

More work will be needed

Future directions for research should include adding a longitudinal arm and looking at the impact on AGE after patients undergo curative surgery and achieve remission, Dr. Sandooja explained.

“It will be interesting to see if AGE levels continue to be persistently high or decrease after patients achieve sustained remission of hypercortisolism. We are also interested in whether AGE measurement at baseline, prior to surgery may be associated with glucocorticoid withdrawal, myopathy, and metabolic outcomes following the surgery.”

Dr. Kotwal observed: “If the answer is clear for Cushing disease, I don’t know what extra information this would give. Maybe they would monitor people more closely afterward. It would be useful to see, but I think the first low-hanging fruit is use it in a way to guide the care of patients where we’re unclear as to whether initial treatment of this [mild autonomous cortisol secretion] is going to improve their outcomes.”

But, he added, “keeping in mind issues of skin ... we don’t want to distract clinicians and patients from using the tried and tested methods of characterizing Cushing syndrome. I’m always hesitant to bring something into practice before there is a little more information on how it can be used.”

Dr. Sandooja and Dr. Kotwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SEATTLE – Tissue accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is associated with the presence of hypercortisolism, suggesting a potential future noninvasive method to assist in the diagnosis of Cushing syndrome, new research suggests.
 

Tissue accumulation of AGEs – harmful compounds formed by glycation of macromolecules – has been implicated in aging, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Now, in a new single-center prospective study, a group of 208 patients with endogenous hypercortisolism was found to have significantly higher median tissue AGE levels than 103 reference subjects without hypercortisolism.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology by Rashi Sandooja, MD, an endocrinology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Diagnosis of endogenous hypercortisolism can be quite challenging. Often patients can have nonspecific symptoms with biochemical testing being equivocal. In these situations, new biomarkers of hypercortisolism such as AGE measurement could potentially be useful,” Dr. Sandooja said in an interview.

“After proper validation, it could help clinicians in cases which may not be straightforward and could serve as an additional” instrument in the toolkit to reach a conclusive diagnosis, she added.

Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, said in an interview: “I think it’s very exciting data. ... I envision its use in mild autonomous cortisol secretion, where there are not a lot of overt Cushing features but they may have a small adrenal mass. ... It might be used to guide care when there’s not a clear-cut answer.”

However, he cautioned that more validation is needed to determine the correlates of AGEs by different etiologies and magnitudes of cortisol excess.

Moreover, “skin can become thin in hypercortisolism, so is [the reader device] just detecting it more with skin testing? I think a blood test for validation would be a very good next step,” added Dr. Kotwal, who is an assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
 

More work will be needed

Future directions for research should include adding a longitudinal arm and looking at the impact on AGE after patients undergo curative surgery and achieve remission, Dr. Sandooja explained.

“It will be interesting to see if AGE levels continue to be persistently high or decrease after patients achieve sustained remission of hypercortisolism. We are also interested in whether AGE measurement at baseline, prior to surgery may be associated with glucocorticoid withdrawal, myopathy, and metabolic outcomes following the surgery.”

Dr. Kotwal observed: “If the answer is clear for Cushing disease, I don’t know what extra information this would give. Maybe they would monitor people more closely afterward. It would be useful to see, but I think the first low-hanging fruit is use it in a way to guide the care of patients where we’re unclear as to whether initial treatment of this [mild autonomous cortisol secretion] is going to improve their outcomes.”

But, he added, “keeping in mind issues of skin ... we don’t want to distract clinicians and patients from using the tried and tested methods of characterizing Cushing syndrome. I’m always hesitant to bring something into practice before there is a little more information on how it can be used.”

Dr. Sandooja and Dr. Kotwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SEATTLE – Tissue accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) is associated with the presence of hypercortisolism, suggesting a potential future noninvasive method to assist in the diagnosis of Cushing syndrome, new research suggests.
 

Tissue accumulation of AGEs – harmful compounds formed by glycation of macromolecules – has been implicated in aging, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Now, in a new single-center prospective study, a group of 208 patients with endogenous hypercortisolism was found to have significantly higher median tissue AGE levels than 103 reference subjects without hypercortisolism.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology by Rashi Sandooja, MD, an endocrinology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“Diagnosis of endogenous hypercortisolism can be quite challenging. Often patients can have nonspecific symptoms with biochemical testing being equivocal. In these situations, new biomarkers of hypercortisolism such as AGE measurement could potentially be useful,” Dr. Sandooja said in an interview.

“After proper validation, it could help clinicians in cases which may not be straightforward and could serve as an additional” instrument in the toolkit to reach a conclusive diagnosis, she added.

Asked to comment, session moderator Anupam Kotwal, MD, said in an interview: “I think it’s very exciting data. ... I envision its use in mild autonomous cortisol secretion, where there are not a lot of overt Cushing features but they may have a small adrenal mass. ... It might be used to guide care when there’s not a clear-cut answer.”

However, he cautioned that more validation is needed to determine the correlates of AGEs by different etiologies and magnitudes of cortisol excess.

Moreover, “skin can become thin in hypercortisolism, so is [the reader device] just detecting it more with skin testing? I think a blood test for validation would be a very good next step,” added Dr. Kotwal, who is an assistant professor in the division of diabetes, endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
 

More work will be needed

Future directions for research should include adding a longitudinal arm and looking at the impact on AGE after patients undergo curative surgery and achieve remission, Dr. Sandooja explained.

“It will be interesting to see if AGE levels continue to be persistently high or decrease after patients achieve sustained remission of hypercortisolism. We are also interested in whether AGE measurement at baseline, prior to surgery may be associated with glucocorticoid withdrawal, myopathy, and metabolic outcomes following the surgery.”

Dr. Kotwal observed: “If the answer is clear for Cushing disease, I don’t know what extra information this would give. Maybe they would monitor people more closely afterward. It would be useful to see, but I think the first low-hanging fruit is use it in a way to guide the care of patients where we’re unclear as to whether initial treatment of this [mild autonomous cortisol secretion] is going to improve their outcomes.”

But, he added, “keeping in mind issues of skin ... we don’t want to distract clinicians and patients from using the tried and tested methods of characterizing Cushing syndrome. I’m always hesitant to bring something into practice before there is a little more information on how it can be used.”

Dr. Sandooja and Dr. Kotwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have disease-modifying potential in people with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD) by reducing the risk for progression to severe liver disease, new research shows.

The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.

©rogerashford/Thinkstock

The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More than just cholesterol lowering

The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.

The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.

“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”

Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.

A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.

Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.

In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).

Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.

Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).

The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
 

‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’

The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.

“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.

“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.

“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have disease-modifying potential in people with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD) by reducing the risk for progression to severe liver disease, new research shows.

The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.

©rogerashford/Thinkstock

The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More than just cholesterol lowering

The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.

The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.

“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”

Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.

A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.

Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.

In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).

Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.

Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).

The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
 

‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’

The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.

“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.

“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.

“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Statins have disease-modifying potential in people with noncirrhotic chronic liver disease (CLD) by reducing the risk for progression to severe liver disease, new research shows.

The Swedish population-based study found that adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were on statin therapy had a statistically significant 40% lower risk of developing severe liver disease, compared with matched patients who were not on statin therapy.

©rogerashford/Thinkstock

The statin users were also less apt to progress to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to die of liver disease, Rajani Sharma, MD, MSc, division of digestive and liver diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

Their study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

More than just cholesterol lowering

The study “continues the theme that cholesterol-lowering statins are good for a lot more things than just lowering cholesterol,” William Carey, MD, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an interview.

The results are “very consistent with other trials that show that people with liver disease on statins do better in many respects than those who are not on statins,” said Dr. Carey, acting head of the hepatology section, department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, Cleveland Clinic.

“The effects are not trivial,” Dr. Carey added. “It’s a very significant advantage in terms of fibrosis progression and survival.”

Statins have been shown to inhibit inflammatory pathways, promote endothelial cell function, and reduce hepatic stellate cell activity, suggesting that statins could lessen the progression of liver fibrosis, Dr. Sharma and coauthors wrote.

A few prior studies have looked at the effects of statins in noncirrhotic CLD specifically, but most only included patients with viral hepatitis, and the identification of precirrhotic liver disease was largely based on fibrosis scores or ICD coding, leading to a risk for misclassification and heterogeneity in results, they wrote.

Using histopathology data in a nationwide Swedish cohort, Dr. Sharma and colleagues identified 3862 adults with noncirrhotic CLD who were statin users and a like number of propensity score–matched nonstatin users with noncirrhotic CLD. The adults with CLD included in the study were required to have a liver biopsy showing fibrosis or inflammation between the years 1969 and 2017 and at least one ICD code for CLD.

In both groups, 45% of patients had nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 22% had alcohol-related liver disease (ALD), 18% had viral hepatitis, and 15% had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH).

The analysis found 234 (6.1%) statin users developed severe liver disease versus 276 (7.1%) nonusers, with incidence rates of 10.5 versus 18.1 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Statin use was associated with a statistically significant 40% lower rate of severe liver disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.74).

This was the case in ALD (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.49) and NAFLD (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.45-1.00), but the results were not statistically significant for individuals with viral hepatitis (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.14) or AIH (HR, 0.88; 0.48-1.58).

Statin use had a protective association in both prefibrosis and fibrosis stages at diagnosis, the researchers reported.

Statin use was also associated with lower rates of progression to cirrhosis (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), HCC (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71) and liver-related death or liver transplant (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82).

The authors noted that their “study provides the most robust estimates available thus far.” However, they cautioned that “prospective randomized controlled trials are necessary in order to recommend statin use in clinical practice.”
 

‘Reassuring and pleasantly surprising’

The study is “very interesting, reassuring, and pleasantly surprising,” Scott L. Friedman, MD, chief of the division of liver diseases and dean for therapeutic discovery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York, said in an interview.

“Statins have been around for a long time, and in earlier days, there was fear of using them because they might induce liver injury. But ample and consistent data exclude the possibility that they are more toxic in patients with liver disease,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not associated with this research.

“What’s interesting and new about this paper is that those studies that have looked at the effects of statins on liver disease have primarily focused on patients who have cirrhosis because there’s some scientific evidence [that] statins can lead to vasodilation and reduce the elevated liver blood flow that occurs in cirrhosis,” he explained.

“Instead, this study, which is quite sizable, includes patients who do not have evidence of cirrhosis based on biopsies. The results suggest that statins have a significant protective effect in these patients,” Dr. Friedman said.

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sharma is a consultant for Takeda and Volv. Other coauthors reported current or past relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Salix, and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Carey and Dr. Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

Time-in-range (TIR) readings from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) complemented hemoglobin A1c readings and provided a more complete picture of glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin, in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.

TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.

However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.

Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.

When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.

“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”

“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
 

‘Important study’

Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”

But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”

Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”

And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.

Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”

“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
 

How does TIR compare with A1c?

Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.

They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.

The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.

Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m² and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.

There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).

This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).

The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.

Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.

A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-in-range (TIR) readings from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) complemented hemoglobin A1c readings and provided a more complete picture of glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin, in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.

TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.

However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.

Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.

When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.

“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”

“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
 

‘Important study’

Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”

But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”

Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”

And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.

Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”

“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
 

How does TIR compare with A1c?

Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.

They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.

The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.

Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m² and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.

There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).

This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).

The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.

Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.

A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-in-range (TIR) readings from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) complemented hemoglobin A1c readings and provided a more complete picture of glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin, in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.

TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.

However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.

Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.

When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.

“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”

“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
 

‘Important study’

Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”

But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”

Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”

And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.

Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”

“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
 

How does TIR compare with A1c?

Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.

They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.

The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.

Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.

There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m² and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.

There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).

This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).

The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.

Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.

A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

CHICAGO – Antiobesity medications and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are popular strategies for weight loss on their own. Now researchers are looking at what happens when you combine them.

In a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), they found ESG followed by an antiobesity medication led to more total weight loss than ESG alone.

Starting medication within 6 months of ESG was more ideal than other timing intervals. Initiating medical therapy more than 6 months before ESG was associated with less weight loss.

In the single-center, retrospective study, 224 patients were enrolled, of whom 34% were on monotherapy (ESG alone), 31% had combination therapy (medication prescribed within 6 months prior to or after ESG), and 35% had sequential therapy (medication more than 6 months prior to or after ESG).

Most patients were female, ranging from 74% to 95% of each group, and baseline BMI ranged from a mean 37.5 kg/m² to 40.1 kg/m².

The medications involved in the study were phentermine, phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), bupropion/naltrexone ER (Contrave), or the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) or semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus). Of the patients who underwent combination therapy, 30% were prescribed a regimen that included a GLP-1RA. Of the patients who underwent sequential therapy, 81% were prescribed a medication first and 19% underwent ESG first.

At 1 year, the greatest total weight loss was a mean 23.7% with the combination of ESG and a GLP-1RA. Total weight loss was 18% with ESG plus a non–GLP-1RA medication. ESG alone led to 17.3%. Sequential therapy that began with ESG yielded 14.7% total weight loss, whereas sequential therapy that began with medication first resulted in 12% weight loss.

Different study, similar result

In a second study, also presented at DDW 2023, investigators looked at timing of liraglutide for weight loss in a randomized controlled trial. They found that administration of GLP-1RA right after transoral outlet reduction endoscopy (TORe) in people with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass extended weight loss longer than a placebo injection. This strategy was also favorable versus waiting to give liraglutide 1 year later.

The researchers randomly assigned 51 people to get weekly subcutaneous liraglutide injections following TORe for 12 months, then placebo injections for 12 months. They assigned 58 patients to receive weekly placebo injections following TORe for 12 months, then liraglutide injections for 12 months.

At 12 months following the procedure, total body weight loss (TBWL) among participants receiving liraglutide was about 22%, compared with about 14% among patients receiving placebo. At 24 months following the procedure (12 months after crossover), TBWL among patients in the liraglutide-first group was almost 35%, compared with about 24% in the placebo-first/liraglutide-second group.

There was a durable effect associated with liraglutide even after switching to placebo, said Ali Lahooti, lead study author and second-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“There did seem to be a better benefit of starting on it for the first year and then stopping it,” Dr. Austin noted.

These two studies come at a time when the debate over the timing of different obesity interventions continues. Some experts believe weight loss medications can help with the rebound in weight that some people experience months after bariatric surgery, for example.
 

‘Wave of the future’

The study by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues is “really exciting and interesting,” said Linda S. Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when asked to comment.

Medication begun within 6 months of the endoscopic procedure “led to superior outcomes, compared to just endoscopy alone,” Dr. Lee said. “I think that’s really the wave of the future as far as treating patients with obesity issues. We clearly know that diet and exercise alone for most people is not good enough. Of course, we have surgery, but we also realize that with surgery sometimes the weight starts to creep back up over time.”

Dr. Lee noted that the study was limited because it was retrospective. Ideally, it would be good if future, prospective research randomly assigns people to endoscopy alone or endoscopy plus medication.

Dr. Lee also noted there is a limited number of bariatric endoscopists. By the time people with obesity get to a specialist, they’ve likely tried diet and exercise and “probably have seen all the commercials for these different medications. I think the reality is that most people will ask their primary care physicians about antiobesity medication.

“From my point of view, as long as the medicine is safe and not harming them, then let’s do both of them together,” Dr. Lee added.

Dr. Lee also mentioned another study (Abstract Mo1898) presented at DDW 2023 that showed total weight loss with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty was durable over 10 years. Follow-up was with only seven patients, however.

Larger numbers are needed to confirm the finding, but it’s “exciting,” she said.

Dr. Jirapinyo receives grant/research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Fractyl, and USGI Medical, and is a consultant for ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Spatz Medical. Dr. Lahooti, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

CHICAGO – Antiobesity medications and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are popular strategies for weight loss on their own. Now researchers are looking at what happens when you combine them.

In a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), they found ESG followed by an antiobesity medication led to more total weight loss than ESG alone.

Starting medication within 6 months of ESG was more ideal than other timing intervals. Initiating medical therapy more than 6 months before ESG was associated with less weight loss.

In the single-center, retrospective study, 224 patients were enrolled, of whom 34% were on monotherapy (ESG alone), 31% had combination therapy (medication prescribed within 6 months prior to or after ESG), and 35% had sequential therapy (medication more than 6 months prior to or after ESG).

Most patients were female, ranging from 74% to 95% of each group, and baseline BMI ranged from a mean 37.5 kg/m² to 40.1 kg/m².

The medications involved in the study were phentermine, phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), bupropion/naltrexone ER (Contrave), or the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) or semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus). Of the patients who underwent combination therapy, 30% were prescribed a regimen that included a GLP-1RA. Of the patients who underwent sequential therapy, 81% were prescribed a medication first and 19% underwent ESG first.

At 1 year, the greatest total weight loss was a mean 23.7% with the combination of ESG and a GLP-1RA. Total weight loss was 18% with ESG plus a non–GLP-1RA medication. ESG alone led to 17.3%. Sequential therapy that began with ESG yielded 14.7% total weight loss, whereas sequential therapy that began with medication first resulted in 12% weight loss.

Different study, similar result

In a second study, also presented at DDW 2023, investigators looked at timing of liraglutide for weight loss in a randomized controlled trial. They found that administration of GLP-1RA right after transoral outlet reduction endoscopy (TORe) in people with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass extended weight loss longer than a placebo injection. This strategy was also favorable versus waiting to give liraglutide 1 year later.

The researchers randomly assigned 51 people to get weekly subcutaneous liraglutide injections following TORe for 12 months, then placebo injections for 12 months. They assigned 58 patients to receive weekly placebo injections following TORe for 12 months, then liraglutide injections for 12 months.

At 12 months following the procedure, total body weight loss (TBWL) among participants receiving liraglutide was about 22%, compared with about 14% among patients receiving placebo. At 24 months following the procedure (12 months after crossover), TBWL among patients in the liraglutide-first group was almost 35%, compared with about 24% in the placebo-first/liraglutide-second group.

There was a durable effect associated with liraglutide even after switching to placebo, said Ali Lahooti, lead study author and second-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“There did seem to be a better benefit of starting on it for the first year and then stopping it,” Dr. Austin noted.

These two studies come at a time when the debate over the timing of different obesity interventions continues. Some experts believe weight loss medications can help with the rebound in weight that some people experience months after bariatric surgery, for example.
 

‘Wave of the future’

The study by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues is “really exciting and interesting,” said Linda S. Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when asked to comment.

Medication begun within 6 months of the endoscopic procedure “led to superior outcomes, compared to just endoscopy alone,” Dr. Lee said. “I think that’s really the wave of the future as far as treating patients with obesity issues. We clearly know that diet and exercise alone for most people is not good enough. Of course, we have surgery, but we also realize that with surgery sometimes the weight starts to creep back up over time.”

Dr. Lee noted that the study was limited because it was retrospective. Ideally, it would be good if future, prospective research randomly assigns people to endoscopy alone or endoscopy plus medication.

Dr. Lee also noted there is a limited number of bariatric endoscopists. By the time people with obesity get to a specialist, they’ve likely tried diet and exercise and “probably have seen all the commercials for these different medications. I think the reality is that most people will ask their primary care physicians about antiobesity medication.

“From my point of view, as long as the medicine is safe and not harming them, then let’s do both of them together,” Dr. Lee added.

Dr. Lee also mentioned another study (Abstract Mo1898) presented at DDW 2023 that showed total weight loss with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty was durable over 10 years. Follow-up was with only seven patients, however.

Larger numbers are needed to confirm the finding, but it’s “exciting,” she said.

Dr. Jirapinyo receives grant/research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Fractyl, and USGI Medical, and is a consultant for ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Spatz Medical. Dr. Lahooti, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

CHICAGO – Antiobesity medications and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are popular strategies for weight loss on their own. Now researchers are looking at what happens when you combine them.

In a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), they found ESG followed by an antiobesity medication led to more total weight loss than ESG alone.

Starting medication within 6 months of ESG was more ideal than other timing intervals. Initiating medical therapy more than 6 months before ESG was associated with less weight loss.

In the single-center, retrospective study, 224 patients were enrolled, of whom 34% were on monotherapy (ESG alone), 31% had combination therapy (medication prescribed within 6 months prior to or after ESG), and 35% had sequential therapy (medication more than 6 months prior to or after ESG).

Most patients were female, ranging from 74% to 95% of each group, and baseline BMI ranged from a mean 37.5 kg/m² to 40.1 kg/m².

The medications involved in the study were phentermine, phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), bupropion/naltrexone ER (Contrave), or the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) or semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus). Of the patients who underwent combination therapy, 30% were prescribed a regimen that included a GLP-1RA. Of the patients who underwent sequential therapy, 81% were prescribed a medication first and 19% underwent ESG first.

At 1 year, the greatest total weight loss was a mean 23.7% with the combination of ESG and a GLP-1RA. Total weight loss was 18% with ESG plus a non–GLP-1RA medication. ESG alone led to 17.3%. Sequential therapy that began with ESG yielded 14.7% total weight loss, whereas sequential therapy that began with medication first resulted in 12% weight loss.

Different study, similar result

In a second study, also presented at DDW 2023, investigators looked at timing of liraglutide for weight loss in a randomized controlled trial. They found that administration of GLP-1RA right after transoral outlet reduction endoscopy (TORe) in people with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass extended weight loss longer than a placebo injection. This strategy was also favorable versus waiting to give liraglutide 1 year later.

The researchers randomly assigned 51 people to get weekly subcutaneous liraglutide injections following TORe for 12 months, then placebo injections for 12 months. They assigned 58 patients to receive weekly placebo injections following TORe for 12 months, then liraglutide injections for 12 months.

At 12 months following the procedure, total body weight loss (TBWL) among participants receiving liraglutide was about 22%, compared with about 14% among patients receiving placebo. At 24 months following the procedure (12 months after crossover), TBWL among patients in the liraglutide-first group was almost 35%, compared with about 24% in the placebo-first/liraglutide-second group.

There was a durable effect associated with liraglutide even after switching to placebo, said Ali Lahooti, lead study author and second-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“There did seem to be a better benefit of starting on it for the first year and then stopping it,” Dr. Austin noted.

These two studies come at a time when the debate over the timing of different obesity interventions continues. Some experts believe weight loss medications can help with the rebound in weight that some people experience months after bariatric surgery, for example.
 

‘Wave of the future’

The study by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues is “really exciting and interesting,” said Linda S. Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when asked to comment.

Medication begun within 6 months of the endoscopic procedure “led to superior outcomes, compared to just endoscopy alone,” Dr. Lee said. “I think that’s really the wave of the future as far as treating patients with obesity issues. We clearly know that diet and exercise alone for most people is not good enough. Of course, we have surgery, but we also realize that with surgery sometimes the weight starts to creep back up over time.”

Dr. Lee noted that the study was limited because it was retrospective. Ideally, it would be good if future, prospective research randomly assigns people to endoscopy alone or endoscopy plus medication.

Dr. Lee also noted there is a limited number of bariatric endoscopists. By the time people with obesity get to a specialist, they’ve likely tried diet and exercise and “probably have seen all the commercials for these different medications. I think the reality is that most people will ask their primary care physicians about antiobesity medication.

“From my point of view, as long as the medicine is safe and not harming them, then let’s do both of them together,” Dr. Lee added.

Dr. Lee also mentioned another study (Abstract Mo1898) presented at DDW 2023 that showed total weight loss with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty was durable over 10 years. Follow-up was with only seven patients, however.

Larger numbers are needed to confirm the finding, but it’s “exciting,” she said.

Dr. Jirapinyo receives grant/research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Fractyl, and USGI Medical, and is a consultant for ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Spatz Medical. Dr. Lahooti, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in 24.9% of women treated for gestational diabetes at less than 20 weeks’ gestation compared to 30.5% of controls treated later or not at all, based on data from nearly 800 women.

Screening and treatment for gestational diabetes are currently recommended at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, with earlier testing recommended for women at increased risk, but the potential benefits of earlier intervention remain debatable, wrote David Simmons, MD, of Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia, and colleagues.

“Until now, there has been complete equipoise over whether to treat hyperglycemia below that of overt diabetes early in pregnancy,” Dr. Simmons said in an interview. The conflicting questions: “Would early treatment reduce the excess deposition of fat on the baby with all of its sequelae; but would early treatment reduce fuel supply to some babies at a critical time and lead to SGA [small for gestational age]?” Dr. Simmons noted.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Simmons and colleagues randomized 406 women aged 18 years and older with singleton pregnancies to immediate treatment for gestational diabetes. Another 396 women were randomized to a control group for deferred treatment or no treatment, based on results of an oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks’ gestation. All participants had at least one risk factor for hyperglycemia, and met the World Health Organization criteria for gestational diabetes. Women with preexisting diabetes or contraindicating comorbid medical conditions were excluded.

The study had three primary outcomes. The first was a composite of neonatal outcomes including birth before 37 weeks’ gestation, birth weight of 4,500 g or higher, birth trauma, neonatal respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia.

The final sample included 748 women for adverse neonatal outcomes, 750 for pregnancy-related hypertension, and 492 for neonatal lean body mass. The mean age of the participants was 32 years; approximately one-third were white European and another third were South Asian. Overall baseline demographics were similar between the groups, and the initial oral glucose tolerance tests were performed at a mean of 15.6 weeks’ gestation.

Overall, 24.9% of women in the early treatment group experienced an adverse neonatal event vs. 30.5% of controls, for an adjusted risk difference of –5.6% and adjusted relative risk of 0.82.

Notably, in an exploratory subgroup analysis, respiratory distress occurred in 9.8% of infants born to women in the immediate treatment group vs. 17.0% of infants in the control group. “Neonatal respiratory distress was the main driver of the between-group difference observed for the first primary outcome,” the researchers wrote. A prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that the impact of an earlier intervention on adverse neonatal outcomes might be greater among women with a higher glycemic value and those whose oral glucose tolerance tests occurred at less than 14 weeks’ gestation, they noted. Stillbirths or neonatal deaths were similar and infrequent in both groups.

Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 10.6% of the immediate-treatment group and 9.9% of the controls group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%). For the third outcome, the mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 g in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 g for the controls (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 g).

No differences in serious adverse events related to either screening or treatment were noted between the groups.
 

Impact on neonatal outcomes merits further study

Dr. Simmons said that he was surprised by the study findings. “We thought if there was an effect, it would be small, but it isn’t,” he told this publication.

“If you combine the severe adverse outcomes, the perineal trauma and the reduction in days in NICU/special care unit, this is a significant impact on morbidity and likely on cost,” and researchers are currently examining data for cost-effectiveness, he said.

“We did not expect the likely large impact on reducing respiratory distress and perineal trauma,” he noted. “These findings have not been previously reported, perhaps because they were not looked for.” By contrast, “we thought here might be reductions in lower gestational age and cesarean delivery, but there was not,” he added.

The findings were limited by several factors including the nonstandardized approach to gestational diabetes treatment and the use of third-trimester treatment targets that had not been tested in earlier trimesters, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on women already at high risk for hyperglycemia; therefore, the results might not generalize to women not at risk, they wrote.

The current study represents a beginning of answers, with data suggesting that early treatment for gestational diabetes reduces severe adverse pregnancy outcomes, days in NICU/special care unit, and perineal trauma, likely from the first trimester, said Dr. Simmons. However, the findings must be interpreted with caution, as criteria that are too low “might lead to more small babies,” he said. “We look forward to working with others to translate these findings into practice,” he added.

Much more research is needed to answer the many questions prompted by the current study, including who did and did not have complications, Dr. Simmons told this publication. Other studies are needed to collect data on cost-effectiveness, as well as consumer views, especially “different perspectives from different parts of the globe,” he said. Although there is not enough evidence yet to draw conclusions about the role of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in managing gestational diabetes, many studies are underway; “we look forward to the results,” of these studies, Dr. Simmons added.
 

Findings support early screening

Gestational diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy, and accounts for more than 80% of diabetes-related diagnoses in pregnancy, said Emily Fay, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“Previous studies have found that women with gestational diabetes are at higher risk in their pregnancy, including higher chance of developing preeclampsia, higher chance of cesarean delivery, and higher risks for their baby, including risk of shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, and jaundice, and higher birth weights,” she said. “Fortunately, studies have also shown that treatment of gestational diabetes helps lower these risks,” she noted. Currently, patients undergo routine screening for gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, but some who have risk factors for gestational diabetes may have screening in the early part of pregnancy, said Dr. Fay.

The current findings were not surprising overall, said Dr. Fay, who was not involved in the study. “The study authors looked at a variety of outcomes including neonatal adverse outcomes, neonatal body weight, and pregnancy-related hypertension,” she said.

The researchers found that patients treated early had a lower rate of adverse neonatal outcomes, which was to be expected, Dr. Fay said. “They did not find a difference in neonatal body weight; this also was not surprising, as the women who were not in the early treatment group still received treatment at the time of diagnosis later in pregnancy, which likely helped normalize the weights,” she explained.

“My takeaway from this study is that we should continue to screen patients with risk factors for gestational diabetes early in pregnancy and treat them at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fay told this publication. However, barriers that may exist to early treatment involve access to care, including being able to see a provider early in pregnancy, she said. “The treatment for gestational diabetes includes dietary education with diet changes and checking blood sugars frequently. Access to nutrition education can be limited and access to healthy foods can be expensive and difficult to obtain,” she noted. “Checking blood sugars throughout the day can also be difficult for those who are busy or working and who may not have the ability to take time to do this,” she said. However, “these barriers may be overcome by health care reform that improves patient access to and coverage of pregnancy care, improved access and affordability of healthy foods, and employer flexibility to allow the time and space to check blood sugars if needed,” she added.

Looking ahead, the use of continuous glucose monitors in pregnancy is an expanding area of research, said Dr. Fay. “Patients can quickly view their blood sugar without the use of finger sticks, which may help overcome some of the barriers patients may have with using finger sticks,” she noted. “Continuous glucose monitors have been used for those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes with success, and we need to better understand if these can also be helpful in gestational diabetes,” she said. Dr. Fay and colleagues at the University of Washington are currently conducting an ongoing study to explore the use of CGM in gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Region Örebro Research Committee, the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna, the South Western Sydney Local Health District Academic Unit, and a Western Sydney University Ainsworth Trust Grant. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Fay had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.

To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.

The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.

Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.

The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.

“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.

“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
 

New evidence

“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”

To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:

• Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
• Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
• If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.

Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.

“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”

“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”

To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
 

Other at-risk groups?

Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.

“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.

For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”

A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.

Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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