Purpose Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides important information to aid in achieving glycemic targets in people with diabetes. PURPOSEWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGM with usual care for parameters of glycemic control in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCESMany electronic databases were searched for articles published from inception until 30 June 2019. STUDY SELECTIONWe selected RCTs that assessed both changes in HbA 1c and time in target range (TIR), together with time below range (TBR), time above range (TAR), and glucose variability expressed as coefficient of variation (CV). DATA EXTRACTIONData were extracted from each trial by two investigators. DATA SYNTHESISAll results were analyzed by a random effects model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the 95% CI. We identified 15 RCTs, lasting 12-36 weeks and involving 2,461 patients. Compared with the usual care (overall data), CGM was associated with modest reduction in HbA 1c (WMD 20.17%, 95% CI 20.29 to 20.06, I 2 5 96.2%), increase in TIR (WMD 70.74 min, 95% CI 46.73-94.76, I 2 5 66.3%), and lower TAR, TBR, and CV, with heterogeneity between studies. The increase in TIR was significant and robust independently of diabetes type, method of insulin delivery, and reason for CGM use. In preplanned subgroup analyses, real-time CGM led to the higher improvement in mean HbA 1c (WMD 20.23%, 95% CI 20.36 to 20.10, P < 0.001), TIR (WMD 83.49 min, 95% CI 52.68-114.30, P < 0.001), and TAR, whereas both intermittently scanned CGM and sensor-augmented pump were associated with the greater decline in TBR. LIMITATIONSHeterogeneity was high for most of the study outcomes; all studies were sponsored by industry, had short duration, and used an open-label design. CONCLUSIONSCGM improves glycemic control by expanding TIR and decreasing TBR, TAR, and glucose variability in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

No abstract

Background Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors reduce cardiorenal outcomes. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the effect on cardiorenal outcomes among GLP-1 RAs, SGLT-2 inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Methods We searched the PUBMED, Embase and Cochrane databases for relevant studies published up until 10 December 2021. Cardiovascular and renal outcome trials reporting outcomes on GLP-1RA, SGLT-2 inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); other outcomes were cardiovascular and total death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and renal outcome. Results Twenty-three trials enrolling a total number of 181,143 participants were included. DPP-4 inhibitors did not lower the risk of any cardiorenal outcome when compared with placebo and were associated with higher risks of MACE, HHF, and renal outcome when compared with the other two drug classes. SGLT-2 inhibitors significantly reduced cardiovascular (RR = 0.88) and total (RR = 0.87) death, as compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, while GLP-1 RA reduced total death only (RR = 0.87). The comparison between GLP-1RA and SGLT-2 inhibitors showed no difference in their risks of MACE, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, CV and total death; SGLT-2 inhibitors were superior to GLP-1RA in reducing the risk of HHF and the renal outcome (24% and 22% lower risk, respectively). Only GLP-1RA reduced the risk of nonfatal stroke (RR = 0.84), as compared with placebo. There was no head-to-head trial directly comparing these antidiabetic drug classes. Conclusions SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1RA are superior to DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing the risk of most cardiorenal outcomes; SGLT-2 inhibitors are superior to GLP-1RA in reducing the risk of HHF and renal events; GLP-1RA only reduced the risk of nonfatal stroke. Both SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1RA should be the preferred treatment for type 2 diabetes and cardiorenal diseases.