TOPLINE:

In middle-aged patients with severe obesity, changes in endogenous sex hormones may be proportional to the amount of weight loss after bariatric surgery and dietary intervention, leading to an improved hormonal balance, with more pronounced androgen changes in women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity-related hormonal imbalances are common among those seeking weight loss treatment.
• This prospective observational study evaluated the incremental effect of weight loss by three bariatric procedures and a dietary intervention on endogenous sex hormones in men and women over 3 years.
• The study included 61 adults (median age, 50.9 years; baseline mean body mass index, 40.2; 72% women) from obesity clinics and private bariatric services in Sydney, Australia, between 2009 and 2012, who underwent bariatric surgery or received dietary interventions based on their probability of diabetes remission.
• The researchers evaluated weight loss and hormone levels at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.
• Changes in hormones were also compared among patients who received dietary intervention and those who underwent bariatric procedures such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic gastric banding.

TAKEAWAY:

• For each kilogram of weight lost over 36 months, the total testosterone levels increased by 0.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.0%) in men and decreased by 0.8% (95% CI, −1.4% to −0.3%) in women.
• In women, testosterone levels decreased and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) levels increased at 6 months; these changes were maintained at 24 and 36 months and remained statistically significant when controlled for age and menopausal status.
• In men, testosterone levels were significantly higher at 12, 24, and 36 months, and SHBG levels increased at 12 and 24 months. There were no differences in the estradiol levels among men and women.
• Women who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery experienced the greatest weight loss and the largest reduction (54%) in testosterone levels (P = .004), and sleeve gastrectomy led to an increase of 51% in SHBG levels (P = .0001), all compared with dietary interventions. In men, there were no differences in testosterone and SHBG levels between the diet and surgical groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Ongoing monitoring of hormone levels and metabolic parameters is crucial for patients undergoing bariatric procedures to ensure long-term optimal health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Malgorzata M. Brzozowska, MD, PhD, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The main limitations were a small sample size, lack of randomization, and absence of data on clinical outcomes related to hormone changes. Additionally, the researchers did not evaluate women for polycystic ovary syndrome or menstrual irregularities, and the clinical significance of testosterone reductions within the normal range remains unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Some authors have received honoraria and consulting and research support from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged patients with severe obesity, changes in endogenous sex hormones may be proportional to the amount of weight loss after bariatric surgery and dietary intervention, leading to an improved hormonal balance, with more pronounced androgen changes in women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity-related hormonal imbalances are common among those seeking weight loss treatment.
• This prospective observational study evaluated the incremental effect of weight loss by three bariatric procedures and a dietary intervention on endogenous sex hormones in men and women over 3 years.
• The study included 61 adults (median age, 50.9 years; baseline mean body mass index, 40.2; 72% women) from obesity clinics and private bariatric services in Sydney, Australia, between 2009 and 2012, who underwent bariatric surgery or received dietary interventions based on their probability of diabetes remission.
• The researchers evaluated weight loss and hormone levels at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.
• Changes in hormones were also compared among patients who received dietary intervention and those who underwent bariatric procedures such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic gastric banding.

TAKEAWAY:

• For each kilogram of weight lost over 36 months, the total testosterone levels increased by 0.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.0%) in men and decreased by 0.8% (95% CI, −1.4% to −0.3%) in women.
• In women, testosterone levels decreased and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) levels increased at 6 months; these changes were maintained at 24 and 36 months and remained statistically significant when controlled for age and menopausal status.
• In men, testosterone levels were significantly higher at 12, 24, and 36 months, and SHBG levels increased at 12 and 24 months. There were no differences in the estradiol levels among men and women.
• Women who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery experienced the greatest weight loss and the largest reduction (54%) in testosterone levels (P = .004), and sleeve gastrectomy led to an increase of 51% in SHBG levels (P = .0001), all compared with dietary interventions. In men, there were no differences in testosterone and SHBG levels between the diet and surgical groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Ongoing monitoring of hormone levels and metabolic parameters is crucial for patients undergoing bariatric procedures to ensure long-term optimal health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Malgorzata M. Brzozowska, MD, PhD, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The main limitations were a small sample size, lack of randomization, and absence of data on clinical outcomes related to hormone changes. Additionally, the researchers did not evaluate women for polycystic ovary syndrome or menstrual irregularities, and the clinical significance of testosterone reductions within the normal range remains unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Some authors have received honoraria and consulting and research support from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged patients with severe obesity, changes in endogenous sex hormones may be proportional to the amount of weight loss after bariatric surgery and dietary intervention, leading to an improved hormonal balance, with more pronounced androgen changes in women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity-related hormonal imbalances are common among those seeking weight loss treatment.
• This prospective observational study evaluated the incremental effect of weight loss by three bariatric procedures and a dietary intervention on endogenous sex hormones in men and women over 3 years.
• The study included 61 adults (median age, 50.9 years; baseline mean body mass index, 40.2; 72% women) from obesity clinics and private bariatric services in Sydney, Australia, between 2009 and 2012, who underwent bariatric surgery or received dietary interventions based on their probability of diabetes remission.
• The researchers evaluated weight loss and hormone levels at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.
• Changes in hormones were also compared among patients who received dietary intervention and those who underwent bariatric procedures such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic gastric banding.

TAKEAWAY:

• For each kilogram of weight lost over 36 months, the total testosterone levels increased by 0.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.0%) in men and decreased by 0.8% (95% CI, −1.4% to −0.3%) in women.
• In women, testosterone levels decreased and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) levels increased at 6 months; these changes were maintained at 24 and 36 months and remained statistically significant when controlled for age and menopausal status.
• In men, testosterone levels were significantly higher at 12, 24, and 36 months, and SHBG levels increased at 12 and 24 months. There were no differences in the estradiol levels among men and women.
• Women who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery experienced the greatest weight loss and the largest reduction (54%) in testosterone levels (P = .004), and sleeve gastrectomy led to an increase of 51% in SHBG levels (P = .0001), all compared with dietary interventions. In men, there were no differences in testosterone and SHBG levels between the diet and surgical groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Ongoing monitoring of hormone levels and metabolic parameters is crucial for patients undergoing bariatric procedures to ensure long-term optimal health outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Malgorzata M. Brzozowska, MD, PhD, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and was published online in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The main limitations were a small sample size, lack of randomization, and absence of data on clinical outcomes related to hormone changes. Additionally, the researchers did not evaluate women for polycystic ovary syndrome or menstrual irregularities, and the clinical significance of testosterone reductions within the normal range remains unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Some authors have received honoraria and consulting and research support from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved vorasidenib (Voranigo, Servier) for the treatment of certain isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant diffuse gliomas, marking the first approval of a targeted therapy for these types of brain tumors.

Specifically, the oral targeted inhibitor of IDH1 and IDH2 was approved for use after surgery in adults and children aged 12 years or older who have grade 2 astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma with a susceptible IDH1 or IDH2 mutation. According to the FDA, surgery includes biopsy, subtotal resection, or gross total resection. 

Mutations in IDH1 are present in around 80% of grade 2 gliomas, whereas IDH2 mutations are more infrequent, occurring in about 4%. 

Prior to the approval, which was based on progression-free survival (PFS) and safety findings from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial, patients with this type of glioma had limited treatment options, said a Servier spokesperson.

The approval of vorasidenib marks “one of the biggest advances in low-grade glioma in more than two decades” and “will empower patients to take active control of their disease with a once-daily pill,” according to the spokesperson.

In the INDIGO trial, 331 patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of vorasidenib once daily (n = 168) or placebo (n = 163). At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the median PFS was more than twice as long among those who received vorasidenib vs placebo: 27.7 months vs 11.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death, 0.39). The time to next intervention was also significantly longer with vorasidenib vs placebo (median not reached vs 17.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.26).

The 61% reduction in the risk for tumor progression or death observed in the trial represents “a significant sign of efficacy that has the potential to change the landscape in this disease,” first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told this news organization in 2023, when presenting the findings at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. These findings were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Glenn Lesser, MD, a discussant at the 2023 meeting, commented on the “striking” findings. The results are “statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” said Dr. Lesser, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Vorasidenib can also potentially delay the use of toxic chemotherapies and radiation for many years in patients with these tumors, Dr. Lesser added.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22.8% of those who received vorasidenib and in 13.5% of those in the placebo group. Increased alanine aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher occurred in 9.6 vs 0% of patients in the groups, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions with vorasidenib, affecting at least 15% of treated patients, include fatigue, headache, COVID-19, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and seizure. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase as well as decreased neutrophils. 

The recommended dose of vorasidenib for adults is 40 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In children aged 12 or older, the recommended dose is 40 mg given orally once daily for those weighing ≥ 40 kg, and 20 mg given orally once daily for those weighing < 40 kg.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved vorasidenib (Voranigo, Servier) for the treatment of certain isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant diffuse gliomas, marking the first approval of a targeted therapy for these types of brain tumors.

Specifically, the oral targeted inhibitor of IDH1 and IDH2 was approved for use after surgery in adults and children aged 12 years or older who have grade 2 astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma with a susceptible IDH1 or IDH2 mutation. According to the FDA, surgery includes biopsy, subtotal resection, or gross total resection. 

Mutations in IDH1 are present in around 80% of grade 2 gliomas, whereas IDH2 mutations are more infrequent, occurring in about 4%. 

Prior to the approval, which was based on progression-free survival (PFS) and safety findings from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial, patients with this type of glioma had limited treatment options, said a Servier spokesperson.

The approval of vorasidenib marks “one of the biggest advances in low-grade glioma in more than two decades” and “will empower patients to take active control of their disease with a once-daily pill,” according to the spokesperson.

In the INDIGO trial, 331 patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of vorasidenib once daily (n = 168) or placebo (n = 163). At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the median PFS was more than twice as long among those who received vorasidenib vs placebo: 27.7 months vs 11.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death, 0.39). The time to next intervention was also significantly longer with vorasidenib vs placebo (median not reached vs 17.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.26).

The 61% reduction in the risk for tumor progression or death observed in the trial represents “a significant sign of efficacy that has the potential to change the landscape in this disease,” first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told this news organization in 2023, when presenting the findings at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. These findings were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Glenn Lesser, MD, a discussant at the 2023 meeting, commented on the “striking” findings. The results are “statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” said Dr. Lesser, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Vorasidenib can also potentially delay the use of toxic chemotherapies and radiation for many years in patients with these tumors, Dr. Lesser added.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22.8% of those who received vorasidenib and in 13.5% of those in the placebo group. Increased alanine aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher occurred in 9.6 vs 0% of patients in the groups, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions with vorasidenib, affecting at least 15% of treated patients, include fatigue, headache, COVID-19, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and seizure. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase as well as decreased neutrophils. 

The recommended dose of vorasidenib for adults is 40 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In children aged 12 or older, the recommended dose is 40 mg given orally once daily for those weighing ≥ 40 kg, and 20 mg given orally once daily for those weighing < 40 kg.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved vorasidenib (Voranigo, Servier) for the treatment of certain isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant diffuse gliomas, marking the first approval of a targeted therapy for these types of brain tumors.

Specifically, the oral targeted inhibitor of IDH1 and IDH2 was approved for use after surgery in adults and children aged 12 years or older who have grade 2 astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma with a susceptible IDH1 or IDH2 mutation. According to the FDA, surgery includes biopsy, subtotal resection, or gross total resection. 

Mutations in IDH1 are present in around 80% of grade 2 gliomas, whereas IDH2 mutations are more infrequent, occurring in about 4%. 

Prior to the approval, which was based on progression-free survival (PFS) and safety findings from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial, patients with this type of glioma had limited treatment options, said a Servier spokesperson.

The approval of vorasidenib marks “one of the biggest advances in low-grade glioma in more than two decades” and “will empower patients to take active control of their disease with a once-daily pill,” according to the spokesperson.

In the INDIGO trial, 331 patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of vorasidenib once daily (n = 168) or placebo (n = 163). At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, the median PFS was more than twice as long among those who received vorasidenib vs placebo: 27.7 months vs 11.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death, 0.39). The time to next intervention was also significantly longer with vorasidenib vs placebo (median not reached vs 17.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.26).

The 61% reduction in the risk for tumor progression or death observed in the trial represents “a significant sign of efficacy that has the potential to change the landscape in this disease,” first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, told this news organization in 2023, when presenting the findings at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology conference. These findings were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Glenn Lesser, MD, a discussant at the 2023 meeting, commented on the “striking” findings. The results are “statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” said Dr. Lesser, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Vorasidenib can also potentially delay the use of toxic chemotherapies and radiation for many years in patients with these tumors, Dr. Lesser added.

Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22.8% of those who received vorasidenib and in 13.5% of those in the placebo group. Increased alanine aminotransferase levels of grade 3 or higher occurred in 9.6 vs 0% of patients in the groups, respectively.

The most common adverse reactions with vorasidenib, affecting at least 15% of treated patients, include fatigue, headache, COVID-19, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and seizure. The most common grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities were increased alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase as well as decreased neutrophils. 

The recommended dose of vorasidenib for adults is 40 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In children aged 12 or older, the recommended dose is 40 mg given orally once daily for those weighing ≥ 40 kg, and 20 mg given orally once daily for those weighing < 40 kg.

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

TOPLINE:

An easy-to-use web-based prognostic tool, MetroPancreas, may help predict the likelihood of futile pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and improve patient selection for upfront surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
• To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
• The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
• The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
• The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
• Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
• The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
• Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.

DISCLOSURES:

The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

An easy-to-use web-based prognostic tool, MetroPancreas, may help predict the likelihood of futile pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and improve patient selection for upfront surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
• To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
• The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
• The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
• The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
• Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
• The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
• Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.

DISCLOSURES:

The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

An easy-to-use web-based prognostic tool, MetroPancreas, may help predict the likelihood of futile pancreatectomy in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and improve patient selection for upfront surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Immediate resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative complications and disease recurrence within a year of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Predicting which patients likely won’t benefit from upfront pancreatectomy is important.
• To identify preoperative risk factors for futile pancreatectomy, researchers evaluated 1426 patients (median age, 69 years; 53.2% men) with anatomically resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2010 and December 2021.
• The patients were divided into derivation (n = 885) and validation (n = 541) cohorts.
• The primary outcome was the rate of futile upfront pancreatectomy, defined as death or disease recurrence within 6 months of surgery. Patients were divided into three risk categories — low, intermediate, and high risk — each with escalating likelihoods of futile resection, worse pathological features, and worse outcomes.
• The secondary endpoint was to develop criteria for surgical candidacy, setting a futility likelihood threshold of < 20%. This threshold corresponds to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for postneoadjuvant resection rates (resection rate, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.01) from recent meta-analyses.

TAKEAWAY:

• The futility rate for pancreatectomy was 18.9% — 19.2% in the development cohort and 18.6% in the validation cohort. Three independent risk factors for futile resection included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (95% CI for coefficients, 0.68-0.87), preoperative cancer antigen 19.9 serum levels (95% CI for coefficients, 0.05-0.75), and radiologic tumor size (95% CI for coefficients, 0.28-0.46).
• Using these independent risk factors, the predictive model demonstrated adequate calibration and discrimination in both the derivation and validation cohorts.
• The researchers then identified three risk groups. In the derivation cohort, the rate of futile pancreatectomy was 9.2% in the low-risk group, 18.0% in the intermediate-risk group, and 28.7% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend). In the validation cohort, the futility rate was 10.9% in the low-risk group, 20.2% in the intermediate-risk group, and 29.2% in the high-risk group (P < .001 for trend).
• Researchers identified four conditions associated with a futility likelihood below 20%, where larger tumor size is paired with lower cancer antigen 19.9 levels (defined as cancer antigen 19.9–adjusted-to-size). Patients who met these criteria experienced significantly longer disease-free survival (median 18.4 months vs 11.2 months) and overall survival (38.5 months vs 22.1 months).

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the study provides an easy-to-use calculator for clinical decision-making, there are some methodological limitations,” according to the authors of accompanying commentary. These limitations include failing to accurately describe how ASA class, cancer antigen 19.9 level, and tumor size were chosen for the model. “While we do not think the model is yet ready for standard clinical use, it may prove to be a viable tool if tested in future randomized trials comparing the neoadjuvant approach to upfront surgery in resectable pancreatic cancer,” the editorialists added.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy, and the accompanying commentary were published online in JAMA Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

In addition to the limitations noted by the editorialists, others include the study’s retrospective design, which could introduce bias. Because preoperative imaging was not revised, the assigned resectability classes could show variability. Institutional differences existed in the selection process for upfront pancreatectomy. The model cannot be applied to cancer antigen 19.9 nonsecretors and was not externally validated.

DISCLOSURES:

The Italian Association for Cancer Research Special Program in Metastatic Disease and Italian Ministry of Health/Italian Foundation for the Research of Pancreatic Diseases supported the study in the form of a grant. Two authors reported receiving personal fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone in patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 2 multicenter, randomized basket trial involving 41 patients with oligometastatic PDAC in the EXTEND trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive MDT plus systemic therapy or systemic therapy alone.
• MDT included definitive local therapy, with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy recommended when feasible. Members of the control group were allowed to receive MDT if their disease progressed.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from random assignment to radiologic progression, clinical progression, or death.
• “Secondary endpoints included overall survival, time to next-line systemic therapy, time to local failure, time to new lesion formation, toxicity, and quality of life,” the authors said.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improved PFS to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone (P = .030).
• The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20-0.94), indicating a substantial reduction in the risk for disease progression or death with MDT.
• No grade 4 or 5 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed, suggesting that MDT is a safe addition to systemic therapy.
• Longer PFS and overall survival were associated with activated systemic immunity after MDT, suggesting that “an activated systemic immune profile, supported by a diverse T-cell receptor repertoire, might promote immunosurveillance of distant microscopic disease.”

IN PRACTICE:

“No other PDAC-specific trials have been reported, and tumor-agnostic studies, such as SABR-COMET or the National Health Service single-arm registry study, have not published PDAC-specific outcomes. Thus, the EXTEND trial provides the strongest evidence to date in favor of the existence of an oligometastatic state in PDAC.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ethan B. Ludmir, MD, and Alexander D. Sherry, MD, both of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online on August 5 in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s broad enrollment criteria may have introduced heterogeneity in the patient population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The study was not powered to evaluate overall survival, and the small sample size may have limited the robustness of the results. Crossover and non–cancer-related deaths could have influenced the comparisons, and quality-of-life data were limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The definition of oligometastasis used in the trial may have oversimplified the complex spectrum of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ludmir disclosed employment with Alaunos Therapeutics and consulting for Xerient. Dr. Sherry reported employment with MD Anderson Cancer Center and honoraria from Sermo. One coauthor has an uncompensated relationship with Polaris Consulting. Another coauthor has stock ownership in BriaCell and a consulting or an advisory role with Regeneron. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone in patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 2 multicenter, randomized basket trial involving 41 patients with oligometastatic PDAC in the EXTEND trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive MDT plus systemic therapy or systemic therapy alone.
• MDT included definitive local therapy, with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy recommended when feasible. Members of the control group were allowed to receive MDT if their disease progressed.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from random assignment to radiologic progression, clinical progression, or death.
• “Secondary endpoints included overall survival, time to next-line systemic therapy, time to local failure, time to new lesion formation, toxicity, and quality of life,” the authors said.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improved PFS to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone (P = .030).
• The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20-0.94), indicating a substantial reduction in the risk for disease progression or death with MDT.
• No grade 4 or 5 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed, suggesting that MDT is a safe addition to systemic therapy.
• Longer PFS and overall survival were associated with activated systemic immunity after MDT, suggesting that “an activated systemic immune profile, supported by a diverse T-cell receptor repertoire, might promote immunosurveillance of distant microscopic disease.”

IN PRACTICE:

“No other PDAC-specific trials have been reported, and tumor-agnostic studies, such as SABR-COMET or the National Health Service single-arm registry study, have not published PDAC-specific outcomes. Thus, the EXTEND trial provides the strongest evidence to date in favor of the existence of an oligometastatic state in PDAC.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ethan B. Ludmir, MD, and Alexander D. Sherry, MD, both of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online on August 5 in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s broad enrollment criteria may have introduced heterogeneity in the patient population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The study was not powered to evaluate overall survival, and the small sample size may have limited the robustness of the results. Crossover and non–cancer-related deaths could have influenced the comparisons, and quality-of-life data were limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The definition of oligometastasis used in the trial may have oversimplified the complex spectrum of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ludmir disclosed employment with Alaunos Therapeutics and consulting for Xerient. Dr. Sherry reported employment with MD Anderson Cancer Center and honoraria from Sermo. One coauthor has an uncompensated relationship with Polaris Consulting. Another coauthor has stock ownership in BriaCell and a consulting or an advisory role with Regeneron. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adding metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to systemic therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone in patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a phase 2 multicenter, randomized basket trial involving 41 patients with oligometastatic PDAC in the EXTEND trial.
• Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive MDT plus systemic therapy or systemic therapy alone.
• MDT included definitive local therapy, with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy recommended when feasible. Members of the control group were allowed to receive MDT if their disease progressed.
• The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from random assignment to radiologic progression, clinical progression, or death.
• “Secondary endpoints included overall survival, time to next-line systemic therapy, time to local failure, time to new lesion formation, toxicity, and quality of life,” the authors said.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improved PFS to 10.3 months vs 2.5 months with systemic therapy alone (P = .030).
• The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20-0.94), indicating a substantial reduction in the risk for disease progression or death with MDT.
• No grade 4 or 5 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed, suggesting that MDT is a safe addition to systemic therapy.
• Longer PFS and overall survival were associated with activated systemic immunity after MDT, suggesting that “an activated systemic immune profile, supported by a diverse T-cell receptor repertoire, might promote immunosurveillance of distant microscopic disease.”

IN PRACTICE:

“No other PDAC-specific trials have been reported, and tumor-agnostic studies, such as SABR-COMET or the National Health Service single-arm registry study, have not published PDAC-specific outcomes. Thus, the EXTEND trial provides the strongest evidence to date in favor of the existence of an oligometastatic state in PDAC.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ethan B. Ludmir, MD, and Alexander D. Sherry, MD, both of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. It was published online on August 5 in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s broad enrollment criteria may have introduced heterogeneity in the patient population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The study was not powered to evaluate overall survival, and the small sample size may have limited the robustness of the results. Crossover and non–cancer-related deaths could have influenced the comparisons, and quality-of-life data were limited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The definition of oligometastasis used in the trial may have oversimplified the complex spectrum of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Ludmir disclosed employment with Alaunos Therapeutics and consulting for Xerient. Dr. Sherry reported employment with MD Anderson Cancer Center and honoraria from Sermo. One coauthor has an uncompensated relationship with Polaris Consulting. Another coauthor has stock ownership in BriaCell and a consulting or an advisory role with Regeneron. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified specific gut microbiota associated with vulnerability to food addiction and others that might be protective against the disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food addiction, characterized by a loss of control over food intake, may promote obesity and alter gut microbiota composition.
• Researchers used the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 criteria to classify extreme food addiction and nonaddiction in mouse models and humans.
• The gut microbiota between addicted and nonaddicted mice were compared to identify factors related to food addiction in the murine model. Researchers subsequently gave mice drinking water with the prebiotics lactulose or rhamnose and the bacterium Blautia wexlerae, which has been associated with a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.
• Gut microbiota signatures were also analyzed in 15 individuals with food addiction and 13 matched controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• In both humans and mice, gut microbiome signatures suggested possible nonbeneficial effects of bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum and potential protective effects of Actinobacteria against the development of food addiction.
• In correlational analyses, decreased relative abundance of the species B wexlerae was observed in addicted humans and of the Blautia genus in addicted mice.
• Administration of the nondigestible carbohydrates lactulose and rhamnose, known to favor Blautia growth, led to increased relative abundance of Blautia in mouse feces, as well as “dramatic improvements” in food addiction.
• In functional validation experiments, oral administration of B wexlerae in mice led to similar improvement.

IN PRACTICE:

“This novel understanding of the role of gut microbiota in the development of food addiction may open new approaches for developing biomarkers and innovative therapies for food addiction and related eating disorders,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Solveiga Samulėnaitė, a doctoral student at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying the potential use of gut microbiota for treating food addiction and to test the safety and efficacy in humans.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by La Caixa Health and numerous grants from Spanish ministries and institutions and the European Union. No competing interests were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified specific gut microbiota associated with vulnerability to food addiction and others that might be protective against the disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food addiction, characterized by a loss of control over food intake, may promote obesity and alter gut microbiota composition.
• Researchers used the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 criteria to classify extreme food addiction and nonaddiction in mouse models and humans.
• The gut microbiota between addicted and nonaddicted mice were compared to identify factors related to food addiction in the murine model. Researchers subsequently gave mice drinking water with the prebiotics lactulose or rhamnose and the bacterium Blautia wexlerae, which has been associated with a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.
• Gut microbiota signatures were also analyzed in 15 individuals with food addiction and 13 matched controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• In both humans and mice, gut microbiome signatures suggested possible nonbeneficial effects of bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum and potential protective effects of Actinobacteria against the development of food addiction.
• In correlational analyses, decreased relative abundance of the species B wexlerae was observed in addicted humans and of the Blautia genus in addicted mice.
• Administration of the nondigestible carbohydrates lactulose and rhamnose, known to favor Blautia growth, led to increased relative abundance of Blautia in mouse feces, as well as “dramatic improvements” in food addiction.
• In functional validation experiments, oral administration of B wexlerae in mice led to similar improvement.

IN PRACTICE:

“This novel understanding of the role of gut microbiota in the development of food addiction may open new approaches for developing biomarkers and innovative therapies for food addiction and related eating disorders,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Solveiga Samulėnaitė, a doctoral student at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying the potential use of gut microbiota for treating food addiction and to test the safety and efficacy in humans.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by La Caixa Health and numerous grants from Spanish ministries and institutions and the European Union. No competing interests were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified specific gut microbiota associated with vulnerability to food addiction and others that might be protective against the disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food addiction, characterized by a loss of control over food intake, may promote obesity and alter gut microbiota composition.
• Researchers used the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 criteria to classify extreme food addiction and nonaddiction in mouse models and humans.
• The gut microbiota between addicted and nonaddicted mice were compared to identify factors related to food addiction in the murine model. Researchers subsequently gave mice drinking water with the prebiotics lactulose or rhamnose and the bacterium Blautia wexlerae, which has been associated with a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.
• Gut microbiota signatures were also analyzed in 15 individuals with food addiction and 13 matched controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• In both humans and mice, gut microbiome signatures suggested possible nonbeneficial effects of bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum and potential protective effects of Actinobacteria against the development of food addiction.
• In correlational analyses, decreased relative abundance of the species B wexlerae was observed in addicted humans and of the Blautia genus in addicted mice.
• Administration of the nondigestible carbohydrates lactulose and rhamnose, known to favor Blautia growth, led to increased relative abundance of Blautia in mouse feces, as well as “dramatic improvements” in food addiction.
• In functional validation experiments, oral administration of B wexlerae in mice led to similar improvement.

IN PRACTICE:

“This novel understanding of the role of gut microbiota in the development of food addiction may open new approaches for developing biomarkers and innovative therapies for food addiction and related eating disorders,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Solveiga Samulėnaitė, a doctoral student at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying the potential use of gut microbiota for treating food addiction and to test the safety and efficacy in humans.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by La Caixa Health and numerous grants from Spanish ministries and institutions and the European Union. No competing interests were declared.

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

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

For most of my formative years in medicine it was taken as gospel that 1-2 drinks/day, particularly red wine, was good for you.

Today though, the pendulum has swung the other way (granted, that could change in a year).

Recent re-analysis of the data now suggests there’s no benefit to any amount of alcohol. Zero. Zip. Nada.

This certainly isn’t the first time in medicine this has happened. It’s amazing how many studies end up getting re-analyzed, and re-re-analyzed, years later, with different conclusions reached.

It makes you wonder how these things happen. Possible explanations include flawed methodologies that either weren’t recognized at the time, confirmation bias, a rush to publish, and, rarely, outright fraud.

All of them, except for the last, are understandable. We all make mistakes. We’re all susceptible to the same statistical and psychological biases. Isn’t that part of the reason we do the peer-review process, so more than one pair of eyes can look for errors?

So, basically, no amount of alcohol is good for you.

Do I really think this is going to change anything? Hell no.

A huge amount of our culture revolves around alcohol. I’m not much of a drinker, but have no desire to give up my 2-3 beers per month, either. Just shopping in the store you see T-shirts, kitchen towels, gift bags, etc., that say things like “wine is just fruit salad” or “1 tequila, 2, tequila, 3 tequila, floor.”

The archaeological record suggests we began making alcoholic beverages 13,000 years ago. That’s a long time, and a pretty hard cultural habit to break. For comparison, tobacco has only been used for 3000 years.

In one of our strangest moments, America launched a 13-year experiment in prohibition, which failed miserably. Think about that. One hundred years ago, in 1924, you couldn’t legally buy alcohol anywhere in the United States. You had to break the law to get a drink, which most people did. Even then it was dangerous —in order to keep industrial ethanol from being sold to the public it was denatured with various toxins. As a result several thousand Americans died from their routine nightcap — with the government’s blessing.

Basically, alcohol isn’t going away. Not now, probably not ever.

There may be some out there who will alter their drinking habits based on the study, but I doubt it. I just don’t see too many people having a glass solely for the same reason they might take Lipitor or a multivitamin.

But I have no issue with correcting the original data. In medicine, and life in general, finding out what works is just as important as learning what doesn’t.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

TOPLINE:

Young and adult children of mothers with type 1 diabetes are almost half as likely be diagnosed with this condition compared with those with affected fathers, even with a similar genetic risk score. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Individuals with a family history of type 1 diabetes face 8-15 times higher risk for this condition than the general population, with the risk of inheritance from mothers with type 1 diabetes being about half that of fathers with type 1 diabetes; however, it is unclear if the effect continues past childhood and what is responsible for the difference in risk.
• Researchers performed a meta-analysis across five cohort studies involving 11,475 individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes aged 0-88 years to evaluate if maternal type 1 diabetes conferred relative protection only to young children.
• They compared the proportion of individuals with type 1 diabetes with affected fathers versus mothers and explored if this comparison was altered by the age at diagnosis and the timing of parental diagnosis relative to the birth of the offspring.
• Lastly, the inherited genetic risk for type 1 diabetes was compared between those with affected mothers versus fathers using a risk score composed of more than 60 different gene variants associated with type 1 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with type 1 diabetes were almost twice as likely to have a father with the condition than a mother (odds ratio, 1.79; P < .0001).
• The protective effect of maternal diabetes was seen regardless of whether the individuals were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before or after age 18 years (P < .0001).
• Maternal diabetes was linked to a lower risk for type 1 diabetes in children only if the mother had type 1 diabetes during pregnancy.
• The genetic risk score for type 1 diabetes was not significantly different between those with affected fathers versus mothers (P = .31).

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding why having a mother compared with a father with type 1 diabetes offers a relative protection against type 1 diabetes could help us develop new ways to prevent type 1 diabetes, such as treatments that mimic some of the protective elements from mothers,” study author Lowri Allen, MBChB, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Allen from the Diabetes Research Group, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, and was published as an early release from the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 

LIMITATIONS:

This abstract did not discuss any limitations. The number of individuals and parents with type 1 diabetes in the meta-analysis was not disclosed. The baseline risk for type 1 diabetes among individuals with a mother, father, or both or no parent with type 1 diabetes was not disclosed. The number of people with type 1 diabetes under and over age 18 was not disclosed, nor were the numbers of mothers and fathers with type 1 diabetes. The relative risk in individuals having no parent with type 1 diabetes was not disclosed. Moreover, the race and ethnicity of the study populations were not disclosed. 

DISCLOSURES:

The Wellcome Trust supported this study. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Young and adult children of mothers with type 1 diabetes are almost half as likely be diagnosed with this condition compared with those with affected fathers, even with a similar genetic risk score. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Individuals with a family history of type 1 diabetes face 8-15 times higher risk for this condition than the general population, with the risk of inheritance from mothers with type 1 diabetes being about half that of fathers with type 1 diabetes; however, it is unclear if the effect continues past childhood and what is responsible for the difference in risk.
• Researchers performed a meta-analysis across five cohort studies involving 11,475 individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes aged 0-88 years to evaluate if maternal type 1 diabetes conferred relative protection only to young children.
• They compared the proportion of individuals with type 1 diabetes with affected fathers versus mothers and explored if this comparison was altered by the age at diagnosis and the timing of parental diagnosis relative to the birth of the offspring.
• Lastly, the inherited genetic risk for type 1 diabetes was compared between those with affected mothers versus fathers using a risk score composed of more than 60 different gene variants associated with type 1 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with type 1 diabetes were almost twice as likely to have a father with the condition than a mother (odds ratio, 1.79; P < .0001).
• The protective effect of maternal diabetes was seen regardless of whether the individuals were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before or after age 18 years (P < .0001).
• Maternal diabetes was linked to a lower risk for type 1 diabetes in children only if the mother had type 1 diabetes during pregnancy.
• The genetic risk score for type 1 diabetes was not significantly different between those with affected fathers versus mothers (P = .31).

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding why having a mother compared with a father with type 1 diabetes offers a relative protection against type 1 diabetes could help us develop new ways to prevent type 1 diabetes, such as treatments that mimic some of the protective elements from mothers,” study author Lowri Allen, MBChB, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Allen from the Diabetes Research Group, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, and was published as an early release from the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 

LIMITATIONS:

This abstract did not discuss any limitations. The number of individuals and parents with type 1 diabetes in the meta-analysis was not disclosed. The baseline risk for type 1 diabetes among individuals with a mother, father, or both or no parent with type 1 diabetes was not disclosed. The number of people with type 1 diabetes under and over age 18 was not disclosed, nor were the numbers of mothers and fathers with type 1 diabetes. The relative risk in individuals having no parent with type 1 diabetes was not disclosed. Moreover, the race and ethnicity of the study populations were not disclosed. 

DISCLOSURES:

The Wellcome Trust supported this study. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Young and adult children of mothers with type 1 diabetes are almost half as likely be diagnosed with this condition compared with those with affected fathers, even with a similar genetic risk score. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Individuals with a family history of type 1 diabetes face 8-15 times higher risk for this condition than the general population, with the risk of inheritance from mothers with type 1 diabetes being about half that of fathers with type 1 diabetes; however, it is unclear if the effect continues past childhood and what is responsible for the difference in risk.
• Researchers performed a meta-analysis across five cohort studies involving 11,475 individuals diagnosed with type 1 diabetes aged 0-88 years to evaluate if maternal type 1 diabetes conferred relative protection only to young children.
• They compared the proportion of individuals with type 1 diabetes with affected fathers versus mothers and explored if this comparison was altered by the age at diagnosis and the timing of parental diagnosis relative to the birth of the offspring.
• Lastly, the inherited genetic risk for type 1 diabetes was compared between those with affected mothers versus fathers using a risk score composed of more than 60 different gene variants associated with type 1 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with type 1 diabetes were almost twice as likely to have a father with the condition than a mother (odds ratio, 1.79; P < .0001).
• The protective effect of maternal diabetes was seen regardless of whether the individuals were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before or after age 18 years (P < .0001).
• Maternal diabetes was linked to a lower risk for type 1 diabetes in children only if the mother had type 1 diabetes during pregnancy.
• The genetic risk score for type 1 diabetes was not significantly different between those with affected fathers versus mothers (P = .31).

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding why having a mother compared with a father with type 1 diabetes offers a relative protection against type 1 diabetes could help us develop new ways to prevent type 1 diabetes, such as treatments that mimic some of the protective elements from mothers,” study author Lowri Allen, MBChB, said in a news release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dr. Allen from the Diabetes Research Group, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, and was published as an early release from the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 

LIMITATIONS:

This abstract did not discuss any limitations. The number of individuals and parents with type 1 diabetes in the meta-analysis was not disclosed. The baseline risk for type 1 diabetes among individuals with a mother, father, or both or no parent with type 1 diabetes was not disclosed. The number of people with type 1 diabetes under and over age 18 was not disclosed, nor were the numbers of mothers and fathers with type 1 diabetes. The relative risk in individuals having no parent with type 1 diabetes was not disclosed. Moreover, the race and ethnicity of the study populations were not disclosed. 

DISCLOSURES:

The Wellcome Trust supported this study. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor's Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Editor's Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Editor's Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

In July, the United States Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which will need to be taken up and passed by the House prior to becoming law. This bill was designed based on emerging research showing how social media impacts the developing regions of the adolescent brain, including those involved in the growing “stop and think” pathways.

Whether this bill is passed or not, parents are already having conversations with their children’s primary care providers about how to navigate digital versus In Real Life (IRL) aspects of parenting. Why should families and primary care providers care about creating opportunities to put down devices together? We have few new ways of explaining social media’s impact on adolescent development. These angles can empower families and give tweens an increased sense of efficacy around family social media agreements. Dr. Mitch Prinstein (chief science officer for the American Psychological Association) explains how apps take children’s data from other apps to make a profit.¹ When kids understand what motivates technology companies, they are more likely to buy into efforts to curtail use. He also explains that adolescent brain size and function decreases with increased social media use and resulting lack of sleep.²

Prioritizing IRL togetherness is increasingly showing up in media itself. In Inside Out 2 the coach collects players’ phones at the beginning of their intensive training weekend, allowing for Riley to have IRL social successes and failures, and resulting growth. Gather, a recently published young adult novel by Kenneth M. Cadow, is written from the perspective of Ian Gray, a teen whose mother struggles with addiction. We experience Ian’s perspective at the house of a friend. This fictional family all put their devices in a basket upon entering their home, allowing the family to interact in a more present and positive way with one another.

Dr. Spottswood

Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont, a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

References

1. Raffoul A et al. Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0295337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295337.

2. Telzer EH et al. Sleep variability in adolescence is associated with altered brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug:14:16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.007.

3. Common Sense Family Media Agreement. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_family_media_agreement.pdf.

4. Healthy Children Family Media Plan. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/fmp/Pages/MediaPlan.aspx.

5. Getz L, Prinstein M. Like Ability: The Truth About Popularity. Washington: Magination Press, 2022. https://www.apa.org/pubs/magination/like-ability.

In July, the United States Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which will need to be taken up and passed by the House prior to becoming law. This bill was designed based on emerging research showing how social media impacts the developing regions of the adolescent brain, including those involved in the growing “stop and think” pathways.

Whether this bill is passed or not, parents are already having conversations with their children’s primary care providers about how to navigate digital versus In Real Life (IRL) aspects of parenting. Why should families and primary care providers care about creating opportunities to put down devices together? We have few new ways of explaining social media’s impact on adolescent development. These angles can empower families and give tweens an increased sense of efficacy around family social media agreements. Dr. Mitch Prinstein (chief science officer for the American Psychological Association) explains how apps take children’s data from other apps to make a profit.¹ When kids understand what motivates technology companies, they are more likely to buy into efforts to curtail use. He also explains that adolescent brain size and function decreases with increased social media use and resulting lack of sleep.²

Prioritizing IRL togetherness is increasingly showing up in media itself. In Inside Out 2 the coach collects players’ phones at the beginning of their intensive training weekend, allowing for Riley to have IRL social successes and failures, and resulting growth. Gather, a recently published young adult novel by Kenneth M. Cadow, is written from the perspective of Ian Gray, a teen whose mother struggles with addiction. We experience Ian’s perspective at the house of a friend. This fictional family all put their devices in a basket upon entering their home, allowing the family to interact in a more present and positive way with one another.

Dr. Spottswood

Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont, a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

References

1. Raffoul A et al. Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0295337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295337.

2. Telzer EH et al. Sleep variability in adolescence is associated with altered brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug:14:16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.007.

3. Common Sense Family Media Agreement. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_family_media_agreement.pdf.

4. Healthy Children Family Media Plan. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/fmp/Pages/MediaPlan.aspx.

5. Getz L, Prinstein M. Like Ability: The Truth About Popularity. Washington: Magination Press, 2022. https://www.apa.org/pubs/magination/like-ability.

In July, the United States Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which will need to be taken up and passed by the House prior to becoming law. This bill was designed based on emerging research showing how social media impacts the developing regions of the adolescent brain, including those involved in the growing “stop and think” pathways.

Whether this bill is passed or not, parents are already having conversations with their children’s primary care providers about how to navigate digital versus In Real Life (IRL) aspects of parenting. Why should families and primary care providers care about creating opportunities to put down devices together? We have few new ways of explaining social media’s impact on adolescent development. These angles can empower families and give tweens an increased sense of efficacy around family social media agreements. Dr. Mitch Prinstein (chief science officer for the American Psychological Association) explains how apps take children’s data from other apps to make a profit.¹ When kids understand what motivates technology companies, they are more likely to buy into efforts to curtail use. He also explains that adolescent brain size and function decreases with increased social media use and resulting lack of sleep.²

Prioritizing IRL togetherness is increasingly showing up in media itself. In Inside Out 2 the coach collects players’ phones at the beginning of their intensive training weekend, allowing for Riley to have IRL social successes and failures, and resulting growth. Gather, a recently published young adult novel by Kenneth M. Cadow, is written from the perspective of Ian Gray, a teen whose mother struggles with addiction. We experience Ian’s perspective at the house of a friend. This fictional family all put their devices in a basket upon entering their home, allowing the family to interact in a more present and positive way with one another.

Dr. Spottswood

Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont, a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

References

1. Raffoul A et al. Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0295337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295337.

2. Telzer EH et al. Sleep variability in adolescence is associated with altered brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug:14:16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.007.

3. Common Sense Family Media Agreement. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_family_media_agreement.pdf.

4. Healthy Children Family Media Plan. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/fmp/Pages/MediaPlan.aspx.

5. Getz L, Prinstein M. Like Ability: The Truth About Popularity. Washington: Magination Press, 2022. https://www.apa.org/pubs/magination/like-ability.

Explore our new, all-in-one toolkit designed to enhance your care for IBS patients. AGA’s new irritable bowel syndrome toolkit gathers all our clinical guidance, continuing education materials, patient education resources, and FAQs in one convenient place. Be sure to check it out and bookmark it for easy access!

Curious about our other toolkits? Visit gastro.org/clinical-guidance to explore our toolkits on ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Keep an eye out for more coming soon!

The toolkit includes clinical guidance on:

• Pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D)
• Pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C)

For more resources for ulcerative colitis patients, visit the Patient Center on the AGA website. The AGA Patient Center has a variety of information that can be shared with your patients, including tips on diet, vaccine recommendations, and information on biosimilars.

Explore our new, all-in-one toolkit designed to enhance your care for IBS patients. AGA’s new irritable bowel syndrome toolkit gathers all our clinical guidance, continuing education materials, patient education resources, and FAQs in one convenient place. Be sure to check it out and bookmark it for easy access!

Curious about our other toolkits? Visit gastro.org/clinical-guidance to explore our toolkits on ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Keep an eye out for more coming soon!

The toolkit includes clinical guidance on:

• Pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D)
• Pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C)

For more resources for ulcerative colitis patients, visit the Patient Center on the AGA website. The AGA Patient Center has a variety of information that can be shared with your patients, including tips on diet, vaccine recommendations, and information on biosimilars.

Explore our new, all-in-one toolkit designed to enhance your care for IBS patients. AGA’s new irritable bowel syndrome toolkit gathers all our clinical guidance, continuing education materials, patient education resources, and FAQs in one convenient place. Be sure to check it out and bookmark it for easy access!

Curious about our other toolkits? Visit gastro.org/clinical-guidance to explore our toolkits on ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Keep an eye out for more coming soon!

The toolkit includes clinical guidance on:

• Pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D)
• Pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C)

For more resources for ulcerative colitis patients, visit the Patient Center on the AGA website. The AGA Patient Center has a variety of information that can be shared with your patients, including tips on diet, vaccine recommendations, and information on biosimilars.