Impact of personalized diabetes care on distress and treatment satisfaction in people with breast cancer.

AIMS: In patients with breast cancer (BCa) and diabetes (DM), diabetes distress (DD) and treatment satisfaction (DTS) can influence BCa management and outcomes. We assessed the impact of implementing a personalized diabetes care model in patients with BCa. METHODS: Patients in active treatment or surveillance for BCa with an HbA1c > 53 mmol/mol (7%) or random blood glucose >11.1 mmol/L were included. Participants were offered continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), virtual care and a dedicated diabetes provider for 6 months. Primary outcomes included DD measured by the Diabetes Distress Survey (DDS) and DTS measured by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Questionnaires were conducted at 0, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Thirty-one women were enrolled (median age 61, IQR 49.0-69.0). Compared to baseline, the mean DDS score was lower at both 3 months (2.2 vs. 1.8 [n = 27], p = 0.004, SD = 0.70) and 6 months (2.3 vs. 1.8 [n = 23], p = 0.002, SD = 0.70). The mean DTSQ score was higher at 3 months (baseline: 20.5 vs. 3 months: 28.7 [n = 28], p < 0.001, SD = 9.2) and 6 months (baseline: 20.4 vs. 6 months: 30.0 [n = 26], p < 0.001, SD = 9.7). CONCLUSIONS: Personalized diabetes care models that emphasize remote management and optimize access for those with BCa may lower DD and improve DTS.

Factors leading to alpelisib discontinuation in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Alpelisib is a phosphoinositide-3-kinase inhibitor approved for hormone-receptor-positive, PIK3CA-mutated metastatic breast cancer. However, length of drug exposure, maximum-tolerated dose, and therefore clinical response can vary significantly outside of the trial setting. This study evaluates our center's "real world" experience with alpelisib and focuses on duration of therapy and factors associated with cancer progression. METHODS: Patients receiving alpelisib at our center between 2019 and 2021 were identified. We evaluated duration of alpelisib therapy and the causative reasons for drug discontinuation. The association of drug duration and dose with subsequent cancer progression were assessed, along with the association between hyperglycemia during alpelisib therapy and cancer progression. RESULTS: Sixty-two women prescribed alpelisib were included (mean age 61 years). Disease progression was the most common reason for drug discontinuation, while discontinuation within 30 days was primarily attributed to adverse events (AEs). Among those who progressed, median time to progression was longer in those on alpelisib for > 90 days compared with those on alpelisib for ≤ 90 days (187 vs. 77 days, p < 0.001). At 200 days, freedom from progression was greater for those on alpelisib for > 90 days compared to those receiving therapy for ≤ 90 days (59% vs. 19%, p = 0.001). Median blood glucose as a continuous variable was associated with disease progression (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: While progression of disease is the largest contributor to alpelisib discontinuation, AEs are the leading cause for early drug cessation. Shorter alpelisib exposure is associated with greater cancer progression. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of sustained hyperglycemia on cancer progression.

Outreach Method Predicts Patient Re-engagement in Diabetes Care During Sustained Care Disruption.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, visits for diabetes care were abruptly canceled without predefined procedures to re-engage patients. This study was designed to determine how outreach influences patients to maintain diabetes care and identify factors that might impact the intervention's efficacy. METHODS: A diabetes nursing team attempted outreach for patients who had a canceled appointment for diabetes between March 16, 2020, and June 19, 2020. Outreach status was defined as reached, message left, or no contact. Outcomes were defined as follows: (1) booking and (2) keeping a follow-up appointment. RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-seven patients were included (384 [49%] were reached, 152 (19%) were left a message, and 251 (32%) had no contact). Reached patients were more likely to book [odds ratio (OR) = 2.43, P < .001] and keep an appointment (OR = 2.39, P < .001) than no-contact patients. Leaving a message did not increase the odds of booking (OR = 1.05, P = .84) or keeping (OR = 1.17, P = .568) an appointment compared with no contact. Older age was a significant predictor of booking an appointment (OR = 1.014 for each year of age, P = .037). Patients on insulin were more likely to keep their appointment (OR = 1.70, P = .008). Patients with a higher hemoglobin A1C level were less likely to keep their appointment (OR = 0.87 for each 1.0% increase in the hemoglobin A1C level, P = .011). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that to optimize re-engagement during care disruption, 1-way communication is no better than no contact and that 2-way communication increases the likelihood that patients will maintain access to care. In addition, although higher-risk patients (eg, patients with older age or those on insulin) may be more incentivized to stay engaged, targeted outreach is needed for those with chronically poor glycemic control.