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.

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.

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.