The impact of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors on outcome of patients with diabetes mellitus and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), and those with diagnosed CRC have a poorer prognosis compared with individuals with normal glucose levels. The inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) channels has been associated with a reduction in tumor proliferation in preclinical studies. We aimed to investigate the impact of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on the outcome of T2DM patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study comprising adult patients with T2DM and colorectal adenocarcinoma. SGLT2i recipients were matched to non-SGLT2i recipients in a 1:1 ratio based on age, sex, and cancer stage. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were previously reported serious adverse events associated with SGLT2i. RESULTS: We identified 1347 patients with T2DM and colorectal adenocarcinoma, from which 92 patients in the SGLT2i cohort were matched to the non-SGLT2i cohort. Compared to non-SGLT2i recipients, SGLT2i recipients had a higher rate of 5-year OS (86.2% [95% CI: 72.0-93.5] vs 62.3% [95% CI: 50.9-71.8], P = 0.013) and 5-year PFS (76.6% [95% CI: 60.7-86.7] vs 57.0% [95% CI: 46.2-66.4], P = 0.021). In Cox proportional hazard analyses, SGLT2i were associated with a 50-70% reduction in all-cause mortality and disease progression. SGLT2i were not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: SGLT2i were associated with a higher rate of survival in T2DM patients with colorectal cancer.

Efficacy of Lipophilic Statins on Outcomes of Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Statins are associated with improved survival outcomes in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the impact of lipophilic and hydrophilic statin properties on patient outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate if statins with lipophilic properties are associated with clinical outcomes in patients receiving ICIs. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at two tertiary referral centers in Taiwan comprising patients receiving ICIs between January 2015 and December 2021. We compared the comparative effect of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on patient outcomes. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among 734 patients receiving ICIs, there were 51 lipophilic statin users, 25 hydrophilic statin users, and 658 nonusers. Lipophilic statin users had a longer median OS (38.0 [IQR, 16.7-not reached] vs. 15.2 [IQR, 8.2-not reached] months vs. 18.9 [IQR, 5.4 51.6] months) and PFS (13.0 [IQR, 4.7-41.5] vs. 8.2 [IQR, 2.2-14.7] months vs. 5.6 [2.3-18.7] months) than hydrophilic statin users and non-statin users. In Cox proportional hazard analyses, the use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 40-50% lower risk of mortality and disease progression compared with hydrophilic statin or non-statin users. CONCLUSIONS: The use of lipophilic statins seems to be associated with survival benefits in patients undergoing immunotherapy.

The impact of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ activating angiotensin receptor blocker on outcomes of patients receiving immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Certain angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) activation property, which has been associated with improved programmed cell death ligand 1 blockade and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-mediated antitumor activity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the impact of PPAR-γ-activating ARBs on patient survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) across all types of cancers. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients receiving both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were included. Compared with non-PPAR-γ-ARB users (n = 102), PPAR-γ-ARB users (n = 65) had a longer median overall survival (not reached [IQR, 16.0-not reached] vs. 18.6 [IQR, 6.1-38.6] months) and progression-free survival (17.3 [IQR, 5.1-not reached] vs. 8.2 [IQR, 2.4-18.6] months). In Cox regression analysis, the use of PPAR-γ-activating ARBs had an approximately 50% reduction in all-cause mortality and disease progression. Patients who received PPAR-γ-activating ARBs also had higher clinical benefit rates than non-PPAR-γ-ARB users (82% vs. 61%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The use of ARBs with PPAR-γ-activating property is linked with better survival among patients receiving ICIs.

Effect of metformin on outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape of cancer treatment, but only a fraction of patients responds to treatment, leading to an increasing effort to repurpose clinically approved medications to augment ICI therapy. Metformin has been associated with improved survival outcomes in patients undergoing conventional chemotherapy. However, whether metformin provides survival benefits in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at two tertiary referral centers in Taiwan. All adult diabetes mellitus patients who were treated with ICIs between January 2015 and December 2021 were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. RESULTS: In total, 878 patients were enrolled in our study, of which 86 patients used metformin and 78 patients used non-metformin diabetes medications. Compared with non-users, metformin users had a longer median OS (15.4 [IQR 5.6-not reached] vs. 6.1 [IQR, 0.8-21.0] months, P = 0.003) and PFS (5.1 [IQR 2.0-14.3] vs. 1.9 [IQR 0.7-8.6] months, P = 0.041). In a univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the use of metformin was associated with a reduction in the risk of mortality (HR: 0.53 [95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.81], P = 0.004) and disease progression (HR: 0.69 [95% CI 0.49-0.99], P = 0.042). The use of metformin remained associated with a lower risk of mortality after adjusting for baseline variables such as age, cancer stage, and underlying comorbidities (OS, HR: 0.55 [95% CI 0.34-0.87], P = 0.011). Similarly, the use of metformin was associated with a lower risk of disease progression. Importantly, the use of metformin before ICI initiation was not associated with a reduction in mortality (HR: 0.61 [95% CI 0.27-1.42], P = 0.25) or disease progression (HR: 0.69 [95% CI 0.33-1.43], P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: The use of metformin is associated with survival benefits in patients undergoing immunotherapy. Prospective clinical trials are warranted to define the role of metformin in augmenting immunotherapy.

Impact of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors on heart failure and mortality in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce heart failure (HF) in at-risk patients and may possess antitumour effects. We examined the effect of SGLT2i on HF and mortality among patients with cancer and diabetes. METHODS: This was a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study involving adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosed with cancer between January 2010 and December 2021. The primary outcomes were hospitalisation for incident HF and all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were serious adverse events associated with SGLT2i. RESULTS: From a total of 8640 patients, 878 SGLT2i recipients were matched to non-recipients. During a median follow-up of 18.8 months, SGLT2i recipients had a threefold lower rate of hospitalisation for incident HF compared with non-SGLT2i recipients (2.92 vs 8.95 per 1000 patient-years, p=0.018). In Cox regression and competing regression models, SGLT2i were associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of hospitalisation for HF (HR 0.28 (95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77), p=0.013; subdistribution HR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.12 to 0.84), p=0.021). The use of SGLT2i was also associated with a higher overall survival (85.3% vs 63.0% at 2 years, p<0.001). The risk of serious adverse events such as hypoglycaemia and sepsis was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SGLT2i was associated with a lower rate of incident HF and prolonged overall survival in patients with cancer with diabetes mellitus.

Do proton pump inhibitors affect the effectiveness of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), one of the most commonly prescribed medications, carry a myriad of adverse events. For colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, it still remains unclear whether the concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) would negatively affect chemotherapy. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022, to identify relevant studies involving CRC patients receiving chemotherapy and reporting comparative survival outcomes between PPI users and non-users. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. We identified 16 studies involving 8,188 patients (PPI = 1,789; non-PPI = 6,329) receiving either capecitabine-based or fluorouracil-based regimens. The overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.15; I2 = 0%) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.35; I2 = 29%) were similar between PPI users and non-users in patients taking capecitabine-based regimens, with low statis-tical heterogeneity. Although the subgroup analysis indicated that early-stage cancer patients taking capecitabine monotherapy with concurrent PPI had a significantly higher disease progression rate (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; I2 = 0%) than those who did not use PPIs, both groups had comparable all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.29; I2 = 0%). On the other hand, there was little difference in both OS and PFS in both early- and end-stage patients taking capecitabine combination therapy between PPI users and non-users. Conversely, the use of concomitant PPI in patients taking fluorouracil-based regimens contributed to a marginally significant higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.40; I2 = 74%), but with high statistical heterogeneity. In conclusion, PPI has little survival influence on CRC patients treated with capecitabine-based regimens, especially in patients taking capecitabine combination therapy. Thus, it should be safe for clinicians to prescribe PPI in these patients. Although patients treated with fluorouracil-based regimens with concomitant PPI trended toward higher all-cause mortality, results were subject to considerable heterogeneity. Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338161.

Efficacy of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines on outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Cationic amphiphilic antihistamines have been shown to improve patient outcomes in immunogenic tumours, but whether they can augment and improve response to immunotherapy is unknown. We aim to evaluate the effect of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study at two tertiary referral centres in Taiwan between January 2015 and December 2021. Patients who received desloratadine, cyproheptadine, and ebastine were classified as cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and clinical benefit rate. Patients treated with cationic amphiphilic antihistamines were matched to patients who received non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamines based on variables including age, cancer type, stage, and history of allergic diseases. RESULTS: A total of 734 ICI-treated patients were included. After matching, 68 cationic amphiphilic antihistamine and non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users remained for analysis. Compared with non-cationic amphiphilic antihistamine users, patients who received cationic amphiphilic antihistamines had a significantly longer median overall survival (24.8 versus 10.4 months; Log-rank, p = 0.018) and progression-free survival (10.6 versus 4.93 months; Log-rank, p = 0.004). The use of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines was associated with an approximately 50% lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.55 [95% CI: 0.34-0.91]). Survival benefits were not seen in patients who received cationic amphiphilic antihistamines before immune checkpoint blockade. These survival benefits were observed regardless of the generation of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines. CONCLUSION: The use of cationic amphiphilic antihistamines was associated with improved survival among patients treated with immunotherapy.