The metabolomic signature of weight loss and remission in the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT).

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: High-throughput metabolomics technologies in a variety of study designs have demonstrated a consistent metabolomic signature of overweight and type 2 diabetes. However, the extent to which these metabolomic patterns can be reversed with weight loss and diabetes remission has been weakly investigated. We aimed to characterise the metabolomic consequences of a weight-loss intervention in individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We analysed 574 fasted serum samples collected within an existing RCT (the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial [DiRECT]) (N=298). In the trial, participating primary care practices were randomly assigned (1:1) to provide either a weight management programme (intervention) or best-practice care by guidelines (control) treatment to individuals with type 2 diabetes. Here, metabolomics analysis was performed on samples collected at baseline and 12 months using both untargeted MS and targeted 1H-NMR spectroscopy. Multivariable regression models were fitted to evaluate the effect of the intervention on metabolite levels. RESULTS: Decreases in branched-chain amino acids, sugars and LDL triglycerides, and increases in sphingolipids, plasmalogens and metabolites related to fatty acid metabolism were associated with the intervention (Holm-corrected p<0.05). In individuals who lost more than 9 kg between baseline and 12 months, those who achieved diabetes remission saw greater reductions in glucose, fructose and mannose, compared with those who did not achieve remission. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We have characterised the metabolomic effects of an integrated weight management programme previously shown to deliver weight loss and diabetes remission. A large proportion of the metabolome appears to be modifiable. Patterns of change were largely and strikingly opposite to perturbances previously documented with the development of type 2 diabetes. DATA AVAILABILITY: The data used for analysis are available on a research data repository ( https://researchdata.gla.ac.uk/ ) with access given to researchers subject to appropriate data sharing agreements. Metabolite data preparation, data pre-processing, statistical analyses and figure generation were performed in R Studio v.1.0.143 using R v.4.0.2. The R code for this study has been made publicly available on GitHub at: https://github.com/lauracorbin/metabolomics_of_direct .

Early time-restricted carbohydrate consumption vs conventional dieting in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Early time-restricted carbohydrate consumption (eTRC) is a novel dietary strategy that involves restricting carbohydrate-rich food intake to the morning and early afternoon to align with circadian variations in glucose tolerance. We examined the efficacy, feasibility and safety of eTRC in individuals with type 2 diabetes under free-living conditions. METHODS: In this randomised, parallel-arm, open label, controlled trial, participants with type 2 diabetes and overweight/obesity (age 67.2±7.9 years, 47.8% women, BMI 29.4±3.7 kg/m2, HbA1c 49±5 mmol/mol [6.6±0.5%]) were randomised, using computer-generated random numbers, to a 12 week eTRC diet or a Mediterranean-style control diet with matched energy restriction and macronutrient distribution (50% carbohydrate, 30% fat and 20% protein). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in HbA1c at 12 weeks. Body composition, 14 day flash glucose monitoring and food diary analysis were performed every 4 weeks. Mixed meal tolerance tests with mathematical beta cell function modelling were performed at baseline and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Twelve (85.7%) participants in the eTRC arm and 11 (84.6%) participants in the control arm completed the study, achieving similar reductions in body weight and fat mass. The two groups experienced comparable improvements in HbA1c (-3 [-6, -0.3] mmol/mol vs -4 [-6, -2] mmol/mol, corresponding to -0.2 [-0.5, 0]% and -0.3 [-0.5, -0.1]%, respectively, p=0.386), fasting plasma glucose, flash glucose monitoring-derived glucose variability and mixed meal tolerance test-derived glucose tolerance, insulin resistance, insulin clearance and plasma glucagon levels, without changes in model-derived beta cell function parameters, glucagon-like peptide-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and non-esterified fatty acid levels. The two diets similarly reduced liver function markers and triglyceride levels, being neutral on other cardiometabolic and safety variables. In exploratory analyses, diet-induced changes in body weight and glucometabolic variables were not related to the timing of carbohydrate intake. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The proposed eTRC diet provides a feasible and effective alternative option for glucose and body weight management in individuals with type 2 diabetes, with no additional metabolic benefits compared with conventional dieting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05713058 FUNDING: This study was supported by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the Italian Society of Diabetology (SID).

A whole-food, plant-based intensive lifestyle intervention improves glycaemic control and reduces medications in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We conducted the largest and longest clinical trial comparing a whole-food, plant-based intervention with standard medical care (SMC) in individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We randomised (parallel-arm; computerised 1:1 randomisation ratio) 169 adults aged 18-75 years with type 2 diabetes in the Marshall Islands to an intensive whole-food, plant-based intervention with moderate exercise (PB+Ex) or SMC for 24 weeks. The PB+Ex intervention included 12 weeks of meals, exercise sessions and group classes. Primary outcomes were glycaemic control (HbA1c, glucose, insulin and HOMA-IR) and glucose-lowering medication use. Secondary outcomes included lipids, blood pressure, heart rate and C-reactive protein. Only lab analysts were blinded. RESULTS: Compared with SMC (n=90 randomised; n=70 analysed), the PB+Ex (n=79 randomised; n=66 analysed) intervention decreased HbA1c by an additional 14 mmol/mol (1.3%) at week 12 (-22 vs -7 mmol/mol [-2.0% vs -0.7%]; p<0.0001) and 8 mmol/mol (0.7%) at week 24 (-16 vs -8 mmol/mol [-1.4% vs -0.7%]; p=0.01). Concomitantly, 63% of medicated PB+Ex participants reduced their glucose-lowering medications (vs 24%; p=0.006), and 23% of PB+Ex participants with a baseline HbA1c <75 mmol/mol (<9%) achieved remission. Additionally, the PB+Ex intervention reduced weight (-2.7 kg; p<0.0001), C-reactive protein (-11 nmol/l; p=0.005) and cardiovascular medication use compared with SMC. At intermediate timepoints, it improved glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR, cholesterol, triglycerides and heart rate, but not at week 24. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A whole-food, plant-based lifestyle intervention was more effective for improving glycaemic control than SMC. It also reduced the need for diabetes and cardiovascular medications and induced diabetes remission in some participants. Therefore, it is an effective, evidence-based lifestyle option for individuals with type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03862963 FUNDING: This research was funded by the Department of the Army (W81XWH-05-1-0547). CJH received support through a National Institutes of Health Predoctoral T32 Obesity Fellowship (T32 HL105349).

Integration of a fasting-mimicking diet programme in primary care for type 2 diabetes reduces the need for medication and improves glycaemic control: a 12-month randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on metabolic control of periodic use of a 5-day fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) programme as an adjunct to usual care in people with type 2 diabetes under regular primary care surveillance. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial, people with type 2 diabetes using metformin as the only glucose-lowering drug and/or diet for glycaemic control were randomised to receive 5-day cycles of an FMD monthly as an adjunct to regular care by their general practitioner or to receive regular care only. The primary outcomes were changes in glucose-lowering medication (as reflected by the medication effect score) and HbA1c levels after 12 months. Moreover, changes in use of glucose-lowering medication and/or HbA1c levels in individual participants were combined to yield a clinically relevant outcome measure ('glycaemic management'), which was categorised as improved, stable or deteriorated after 1 year of follow-up. Several secondary outcome measures were also examined, including changes in body weight. RESULTS: One hundred individuals with type 2 diabetes, age 18-75 years, BMI ≥27 kg/m2, were randomised to the FMD group (n=51) or the control group (n=49). Eight FMD participants and ten control participants were lost to follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses, using linear mixed models, revealed adjusted estimated treatment effects for the medication effect score (-0.3; 95% CI -0.4, -0.2; p<0.001), HbA1c (-3.2 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.2, -0.2 and -0.3%; 95% CI -0.6, -0.0; p=0.04) and body weight (-3.6 kg; 95% CI -5.2, -2.1; p<0.001) at 12 months. Glycaemic management improved in 53% of participants using FMD vs 8% of control participants, remained stable in 23% vs 33%, and deteriorated in 23% vs 59% (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Integration of a monthly FMD programme in regular primary care for people with type 2 diabetes who use metformin as the only glucose-lowering drug and/or diet for glycaemic control reduces the need for glucose-lowering medication, improves HbA1c despite the reduction in medication use, and appears to be safe in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03811587 FUNDING: The project was co-funded by Health~Holland, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health, the Dutch Diabetes Foundation and L-Nutra.

An open-label randomised-controlled trial of azathioprine vs. mycophenolate mofetil for the induction of remission in treatment-naive autoimmune hepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) almost invariably require lifelong immunosuppressive treatment. There is genuine concern about the efficacy and tolerability of the current standard combination therapy of prednisolone and azathioprine. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has emerged as an alternative option. The aim of this study was to compare MMF to azathioprine as induction therapy for AIH. METHODS: In this 24-week, prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial, 70 patients with treatment-naive AIH received either MMF or azathioprine, both in combination with prednisolone. The primary endpoint was biochemical remission defined as normalisation of serum levels of alanine aminotransferase and IgG after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Seventy patients (mean 57.9 years [SD 14.0]; 72.9% female) were randomly assigned to the MMF plus prednisolone (n = 39) or azathioprine plus prednisolone (n = 31) group. The primary endpoint was met in 56.4% and 29.0% of patients assigned to the MMF group and the azathioprine group, respectively (difference, 27.4 percentage points; 95% CI 4.0 to 46.7; p = 0.022). The MMF group exhibited higher complete biochemical response rates at 6 months (72.2% vs. 32.3%; p = 0.004). No serious adverse events occurred in patients who received MMF (0%) but serious adverse events were reported in four patients who received azathioprine (12.9%) (p = 0.034). Two patients in the MMF group (5.1%) and eight patients in the azathioprine group (25.8%) discontinued treatment owing to adverse events or serious adverse events (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-naive AIH, MMF with prednisolone led to a significantly higher rate of biochemical remission at 24 weeks compared to azathioprine combined with prednisolone. Azathioprine use was associated with more (serious) adverse events leading to cessation of treatment, suggesting superior tolerability of MMF. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: This randomised-controlled trial directly compares azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, both in combination with prednisolone, for the induction of biochemical remission in treatment-naive patients with autoimmune hepatitis. Achieving complete remission is desirable to prevent disease progression. Patients assigned to the mycophenolate mofetil group reached biochemical remission more often and experienced fewer adverse events. The findings in this trial may contribute to the re-evaluation of international guidelines for the standard of care in treatment-naive patients with autoimmune hepatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: #NCT02900443.

Navigating the landscape of liver cancer management: Study designs in clinical trials and clinical practice.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide and its prognosis is highly heterogeneous, being related not only to tumour burden but also to the severity of underlying chronic liver disease. Moreover, advances in systemic therapies for HCC have increased the complexity of patient management. Randomised-controlled trials represent the gold standard for evidence generation across all areas of medicine and especially in the oncology field, as they allow for unbiased estimates of treatment effect without confounders. Observational studies have many problems that could reduce their internal and external validity. However, large prospective (well-conducted) observational real-world studies can detect rare adverse events or monitor the occurrence of long-term adverse events. How best to harness real world data, which refers to data generated from the routine care of patients, and real-world 'evidence', which is the evidence generated from real-world data, represents an open challenge. In this review article, we aim to provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of different study designs, particularly focusing on randomised-controlled trials and observational studies, to address important and not fully resolved questions in HCC research.

Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047).

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ('Adjuvant-RT') or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ('Salvage-RT') defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. RESULTS: Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047.

ENGOT-en11/GOG-3053/KEYNOTE-B21: a randomised, double-blind, phase III study of pembrolizumab or placebo plus adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provides clinically meaningful benefit as first-line therapy for advanced (locoregional extension and residual disease after surgery)/metastatic/recurrent mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) and mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) endometrial cancer, with greater magnitude of benefit in the dMMR phenotype. We evaluated the addition of pembrolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy (with/without radiation therapy) among patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk endometrial cancer without any residual macroscopic disease following curative-intent surgery. METHODS: We included patients with histologically confirmed high-risk [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I/II of non-endometrioid histology or endometrioid histology with p53/TP53 abnormality, or stage III/IVA of any histology] endometrial cancer following surgery with curative intent and no evidence of disease postoperatively, with no prior radiotherapy or systemic therapy. Patients were randomised to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks (Q3W) for six cycles added to carboplatin-paclitaxel followed by pembrolizumab 400 mg or placebo every 6 weeks (Q6W) for six cycles per treatment assignment. Radiotherapy was at the investigator's discretion. The primary endpoints were investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients were randomised (pembrolizumab, n = 545; placebo, n = 550). At this interim analysis (data cut-off, 4 March 2024), 119 (22%) DFS events occurred in the pembrolizumab group and 121 (22%) occurred in the placebo group [hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.32; P = 0.570]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 2-year DFS rates were 75% and 76% in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for DFS was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14-0.69) in the dMMR population (n = 281) and 1.20 (95% CI 0.91-1.57) in the pMMR population (n = 814). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 386 of 543 (71%) and 348 of 549 (63%) patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups, respectively. No treatment-related grade 5 AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy did not improve DFS in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, all-comer endometrial cancer. Preplanned subgroup analyses for stratification factors suggest that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved DFS in patients with dMMR tumours. Safety was manageable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04634877; EudraCT, 2020-003424-17. RESEARCH SUPPORT: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.

Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy: a cluster-randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) improve outcomes in older patients with cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy. It is unclear whether GAM may provide better function and quality of life (QoL), or be cost-effective, in a radiotherapy (RT) setting. METHODS: In this Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study, we assessed the impact of a GAM intervention involving specialist and primary health services. It was initiated in-hospital at the start of RT by assessing somatic and mental health, function, and social situation, followed by individually adapted management plans and systematic follow-up in the municipalities until 8 weeks after the end of RT, managed by municipal nurses as patients' care coordinators. Thirty-two municipal/city districts were 1:1 randomised to intervention or conventional care. Patients with cancer ≥ 65 years, referred for RT, were enrolled irrespective of cancer type, treatment intent, and frailty status, and followed the allocation of their residential district. The primary outcome was physical function measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes were overall quality of life (QoL), physical performance, use and costs of health services. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Study registration at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03881137. RESULTS: We included 178 patients, 89 in each group with comparable age (mean 74.1), sex (female 38.2%), and Edmonton Frail Scale scores (mean 3.4 [scale 0-17], scores 0-3 [fit] in 57%). More intervention patients received curative RT (76.4 vs 61.8%), had higher irradiation doses (mean 54.1 vs 45.5 Gy), and longer lasting RT (mean 4.4 vs 3.6 weeks). The primary outcome was completed by 91% (intervention) vs 88% (control) of patients. No significant differences between groups on predefined outcomes were observed. GAM costs represented 3% of health service costs for the intervention group during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this heterogeneous cohort of older patients receiving RT, the majority was fit. We found no impact of the intervention on patient-centred outcomes or the cost of health services. Targeting a more homogeneous group of only pre-frail and frail patients is strongly recommended in future studies needed to clarify the role and organisation of GAM in RT settings.

The impact of an illness perception conversation on open-label placebo response in knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of an illness perception conversation (IPC), relative to a research participation conversation (RPC), on 2-week changes in knee pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: This was a randomised single-blind trial. Patients were randomised to two matched conversations. An IP conversation concerning the participant's knee pain-related illness perception (IP) or an RPC concerning the participant's motivation for participating in research. Both conversations were followed by an open-label intraarticular saline injection in the most symptomatic knee. The primary outcome was change in knee pain from baseline to 2 weeks follow-up on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Key secondary outcomes included the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales: Activities of daily living (ADL) and Quality of life (QoL). Main analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population using repeated measures mixed effects linear models. RESULTS: 103 patients were randomised to the IPC group (n = 52) and the RPC group (n = 51). VAS knee pain scores changed statistically significantly from baseline to end of treatment in both groups, -13.7 (standard error [SE]: 3.2) in the IPC group and -13.0 (SE: 3.1) in the RPC group with an adjusted between-group difference of -0.7 (95% CI: -8.3 to 6.9; P = 0.85). Likewise, no group differences were seen in KOOS ADL and KOOS QoL. CONCLUSION: A conversation concerning knee pain-related IP did not augment the pain-relieving effect of an open-label placebo injection when compared to a similar control conversation concerning motivations for participating in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05225480.