Impact of wait time from neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery in breast cancer: Does time to surgery affect patient outcomes? : Time from Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy to Surgery.

PURPOSE: The optimal time interval from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to surgery in patients with breast cancer has not been established. We investigated whether different time intervals impact the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR), disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), surgical complications, and rates of conversion from mastectomy to breast conserving surgery (BCS) in this population. METHODS: We identified patients who received NAC at the BC Cancer Agency followed by surgery from May 2012 to April 2018. Patients were grouped based on time interval between NAC and surgery: < 4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, and > 8 weeks. Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate DFS and OS. Rates of pCR between the time intervals were also compared. RESULTS: Of the 343 patients, 78 (22.8%) received surgery < 4 weeks, 233 (67.9%) received surgery between 4-8 weeks, and 32 (9.3%) received surgery > 8 weeks after NAC, with a median time to surgery (TTS) of 5.0 weeks. pCR was observed in 32.1%, 32.2%, and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.90). Median follow-up time was 3.3 years. The 5-year DFS was 76%, 78%, and 70% (p = 0.89), respectively. The 5-year OS was 83%, 82%, and 78% (p = 0.33), respectively. No statistically significant differences were seen in surgical complications (p = 0.90), or rates of conversion from mastectomy to BCS (p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in pCR, DFS, OS, surgical complications, and rates of conversion from mastectomy to BCS, among breast cancer patients receiving surgery < 4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, or > 8 weeks after the last dose of NAC.

Medication-Induced Hyperglycemia and Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of Current Literature and Practical Management Strategies.

With the increasing global incidence of diabetes mellitus, physicians may encounter more patients with acute and chronic complications of medication-induced hyperglycemia and diabetes. Moreover, medication-induced diabetes may be an important contributing factor to the high rates of diabetes, and recognizing its impact and risk is a critical step in curtailing its effect on the global population. It has long been recognized that multiple classes of medications are associated with hyperglycemia through various mechanisms, and the ability to foresee this and implement adequate management strategies are important. Moreover, different antihyperglycemic medications are better suited to combat the hyperglycemia encountered with different classes of medications, so it is critical that physicians can recognize which agents should be used, and which medications to avoid in certain types of medication-induced hyperglycemia. In this review, we will discuss the evidence behind the main classes of medications that cause hyperglycemia, their mechanism of action, specific agents that are associated with worsened glycemic control, and, most importantly, management strategies that are tailored to each specific class.

First report of type 2 diabetes mellitus in an adult with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A lyase deficiency.

Summary: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) lyase deficiency is an inborn error of metabolism resulting in a lack of ketogenesis and leucine catabolism. Hallmarks of decompensation include hypoglycemia without ketosis (or hypoketosis), metabolic acidosis, and hyperammonemia. Management includes avoiding fasting and restricting dietary protein and fat. Conversely, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires carbohydrate restriction and/or anti-hyperglycemic agents; thus, managing these co-existing disorders is challenging. A 36-year-old male with HMG-CoA lyase deficiency and T2DM (Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c): 7.9%) presented with confusion and shock. Blood work revealed metabolic acidosis, hyperammonemia, hyperglycemia, and hypoketosis. The patient was diagnosed with hyperosmolar non-ketotic hyperglycemia and hyperammonemia secondary to HMG-CoA lyase metabolic decompensation requiring intensive care unit admission. Hyperammonemia management was challenging because alternative calories with i.v. dextrose (due to hyperglycemia) and i.v. lipids (due to HMG-CoA lyase deficiency) could not be provided as usual. The patient was started on hemodialysis and i.v. insulin with marked improvement. Once stabilized, metformin and insulin were initiated. T2DM impaired cellular glucose uptake and produced a state similar to hypoglycemia, despite the patient being profoundly hyperglycemic, which led to metabolic decompensation of HMG-CoA lyase deficiency. Managing T2DM and HMG-CoA lyase deficiency warrants special considerations due to the potential for metabolic decompensation with both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Learning points: In a patient with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) lyase deficiency and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), management principles include avoiding hypoglycemia to prevent metabolic decompensation, providing insulin for proper glucose utilization, and moderation of carbohydrate intake to prevent consequences of chronic hyperglycemia. The development of insulin resistance in the form of T2DM in HMG-CoA lyase deficiency likely triggered a state similar to hypoglycemia, leading to cellular energy deficiency and subsequently metabolic decompensation. It is important to avoid hypoglycemia in patients with HMG-CoA lyase deficiency and T2DM, as the risk of metabolic decompensation is increased due to the lack of ketogenesis in HMG-CoA lyase deficiency. Selection of antidiabetic agents in this patient population requires careful consideration, and agents that have a higher risk of hypoglycemia should be avoided.

Improved Glycemia and Quality of Life Among Loop Users: Analysis of Real-world Data From a Single Center.

BACKGROUND: Despite do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery being an unapproved method of insulin delivery, an increasing number of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) worldwide are choosing to use Loop, a do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery system. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to assess glycemic outcomes, safety, and the perceived impact on quality of life (QOL) in a local Edmonton cohort of known Loop users. METHODS: An observational study of adults with T1D who used Loop was performed. An assessment of glycemic and safety outcomes, HbA1c, time in range, hospital admissions, and time below range compared users most recent 6 months of Loop use, with their prior regulatory approved insulin delivery method. QOL outcomes were assessed using Insulin Dosing Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections, and Expectations, diabetes impact, and device satisfaction measures (with maximum scores of 100, 10, and 10, respectively) and semistructured interviews. RESULTS: The 24 adults with T1D who took part in this study 16 (67%) were female, with a median age of 33 (IQR 28-45) years, median duration of diabetes of 22 (IQR 17-32) years, median pre-Loop HbA1c of 7.9% (IQR 7.6%-8.3%), and a median duration of Loop use of 18 (IQR 12-25) months. During Loop use, the participants had median (IQR) values of 7.1% (6.5%-7.5%), 54 mmol (48-58) for HbA1c and 76.5% (64.6%-81.9%) for time in range, which were a significant improvement from prior therapy (P=.001 and P=.005), with a nonsignificant reduction in time below range; 3.0 to 3.9 mmol/L (P=.17) and <3 mmol/L (P=.53). Overall, 2 episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in a total of 470 months of Loop use, and no severe hypoglycemia occurred. The positive impact of Loop use on QOL was explored in qualitative analysis and additionally demonstrated through a median Insulin Dosing Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections, and Expectations score of 86 (IQR 79-95), a median diabetes impact score of 2.8 (IQR 2.1-3.9), and a median device satisfaction score of 9 (IQR 8.2-9.4). CONCLUSIONS: This local cohort of people with T1D demonstrated a beneficial effect of Loop use on both glycemic control and QOL, with no safety concerns being highlighted.

Towards environmental health equity in health impact assessment: innovations and opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: As global environmental change drives inequitable health outcomes, novel health equity assessment methodologies are increasingly required. We review literatures on equity-focused HIA to clarify how equity is informing HIA practice, and to surface innovations for assessing health equity in relation to a range of exposures across geographic and temporal scales. METHODS: A narrative review of the health equity and HIA literatures analysed English articles published between 2003 and 2017 across PubMed, PubMed Central, Biomed Central and Ovid Medline. Title and abstract reviews of 849 search results yielded 89 articles receiving full text review. RESULTS: Considerations of equity in HIA increased over the last 5 years, but equity continues to be conflated with health disparities rather than their root causes (i.e. inequities). Lessons from six literatures to inform future HIA practice are described: HIA for healthy cities, climate change vulnerability assessment, cumulative health risk assessment, intersectionality-based policy analysis, corporate health impact assessment and global health impact assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Academic reporting on incorporating equity in HIA practice has been limited. Nonetheless, significant methodological advancements are being made to examine the health equity implications of multiple environmental exposures.