Greater Glycemic Burden Is Associated with Further Poorer Glycemic Control in Newly-Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients

Aims: hyperglycemia impairs pancreatic β-cell function instantly, also known as glucotoxicity. It is unknown whether this insult is temporary or sustained, and little real-world evidence needs to reflect the relationship between hyperglycemic burden, per se, and glycemic durability. Materials and Methods: a retrospective observational cohort study was conducted to recruit newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Durability was defined as the episode from first glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) below 7.0% to where it exceed 8.0% (with treatment failure) or where study ended (without treatment failure). Glycemic burden was defined with the area above a burden value line (HbA1c = 6.5%) but under the HbA1c curve (AUC), and it was then divided into two compartments with the demarcation timepoint once HbA1c was treated below or equal to 7.0%; the former AUC’ represented the initial insult; the latter AUC” represented the residual part. Multivariable regression models assessed factors associated with durability in whole participants and two distinct subgroups: patients with baseline HbA1c > 7.0% or ≤7.0%. Results: 1048 eligible participants were recruited and analyzed: 291 patients with treatment failure (durability 26.8 ± 21.1 months); 757 patients without treatment failure (durability 45.1 ± 31.8 months). Besides age, glycemic burden was the only constant determinant in the two subgroups. AUC’ or AUC” increased treatment failure, respectively, in baseline HbA1c > 7.0% or ≤7.0% subgroup [per 1%/90 days hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.026 (1.018–1.034) and 1.128 (1.016–1.253)]. Other determinants include baseline HbA1c, initial OAD, and education level. Conclusions: in patients with newly-diagnosed T2DM, glycemic durability was negatively associated with greater glycemic burden.

Real World Evidence of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies for Preventing Hospitalization and Mortality in COVID-19 Outpatients

Background: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are authorized for early symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Whether mAbs are effective against the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, among vaccinated patients, or for prevention of mortality remains unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb treatment in preventing progression to severe disease during the Delta phase of the pandemic and based on key baseline risk factors. Design, Setting, and Patients: Observational cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from November 2020-October 2021, using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. Using propensity matching, we selected approximately 2.5 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received mAbs. Exposure: Neutralizing mAb treatment under emergency use authorization Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and severity of hospitalization. Results: Of 36,077 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,675 receiving mAbs were matched to 6,677 not receiving mAbs. Compared to mAb-untreated patients, mAb-treated patients had lower all-cause hospitalization (4.0% vs 7.7%; adjusted OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.38-0.60) and all-cause mortality (0.1% vs. 0.9%; adjusted OR 0.11, 95%CI 0.03-0.29) to day 28; differences persisted to day 90. Among hospitalized patients, mAb-treated patients had shorter hospital length of stay (5.8 vs. 8.5 days) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (4.6% vs. 16.6%). Relative effectiveness was similar in preventing hospitalizations during the Delta variant phase (adjusted OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.25-0.50) and across subgroups. Lower number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent hospitalization were observed for subgroups with higher baseline risk of hospitalization (e.g., multiple comorbidities (NNT=17) and not fully vaccinated (NNT=24) vs. no comorbidities (NNT=88) and fully vaccinated (NNT=81). Conclusion: Real-world evidence demonstrated mAb effectiveness in reducing hospitalization among COVID-19 outpatients, including during the Delta variant phase, and conferred an overall 89% reduction in 28-day mortality. Early outpatient treatment with mAbs should be prioritized, especially for individuals with highest risk for hospitalization.

Ruxolitinib Re-Treatment in Patients with Myelofibrosis: Real-World Evidence on Patient Characteristics and Outcomes

Ruxolitinib is an FDA-approved treatment of intermediate- and high-risk myelofibrosis. In the phase 3 COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib reduced spleen volume in patients with myelofibrosis, with a median time to response of 3 months. However, nearly 20% of patients discontinued by month 4 with few treatment options available following discontinuation of ruxolitinib treatment. In this study, 2 independent patient care data sources were queried (Cardinal Health Oncology Provider Extended Network [OPEN] and HealthCore Integrated Research Environment [HIRE®]), and a retrospective review of medical charts was conducted. Patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of myelofibrosis (primary or secondary), use of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis, and documented physician-directed ruxolitinib interruption were included. Among 26 included patients, pre-interruption median (interquartile range [IQR]) ruxolitinib treatment duration was 123 (57–391, OPEN) and 110 (37–148, HIRE) days. Half the patients interrupted treatment within 3 months, commonly for adverse events (42% and 71%, respectively). After restarting ruxolitinib, median (IQR) re-treatment duration was 196 (54–553) and 166 (108–262) days, respectively. Consistent with previous reports, symptoms and spleen size improved in (OPEN/HIRE) 45%/43% and 40%/33% of evaluable patients, respectively. Further studies investigating the management of dose modifications and interruptions are needed to optimize benefit from ruxolitinib therapy.

Localized peripheral neuropathic pain: topical treatment with lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster in routine clinical practice

Aim: To provide real-world evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) in localized peripheral neuropathic pain (l-PNP) treatment compared with first-line oral medications (OM). Patients & methods: This was a noninterventional, retrospective 6-month cohort study in patients refractory to at least one recommended OM, using anonymized medical care data from the German Pain eRegistry. Treatment groups were matched by propensity scoring, considering seven predefined confounding factors. The primary effectiveness end point was the absolute change in average pain intensity index from baseline at weeks 4, 12 and 24 of treatment and over the treatment period. Results: A total of 3081 datasets were retained per treatment group. LMP provided superior pain reductions and significantly greater improvements in pain-related impairments of daily living and quality of life with significantly better tolerability (p < 0.001 for all parameters) than OM. Conclusion: These real-world data confirm the effectiveness and good tolerability of LMP for l-PNP treatment under routine medical care.