India's high prevalence of iron-deficiency anemia has largely been attributed to the local diet consisting of nonheme iron, which has lower absorption than that of heme iron. We assessed the efficacy of the consumption of iron-supplement bars in raising hemoglobin concentrations and hematocrit percentages in anemic (hemoglobin concentration <12 g/dL) Indian women of reproductive age. The Let's be Well Red study was a 90-d, pair-matched, cluster-randomized controlled trial. A total of 361 nonpregnant women (age 18-35 y) were recruited from 10 sites within Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, India. All participants received anemia education and a complete blood count (CBC). Random assignment of anemic participants to intervention and control arms occurred within 5 matched site-pairs. Intervention participants received 1 iron-supplement bar (containing 14 mg Fe)/d for 90 d, whereas control subjects received nothing. CBC tests were given at days 15, 45, and 90. Primary outcomes were 90-d changes from baseline in hemoglobin concentrations and hematocrit percentages. Linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations were used to model continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. Of 179 anemic participants, 136 (76.0%) completed all follow-up assessments (65 intervention and 71 control participants). Baseline characteristics were comparable by arm. Mean hemoglobin and hematocrit increases after 90 d were greater for intervention than for control participants [1.4 g/dL (95% CI: 1.3, 1.6 g/dL) and 2.7% (95% CI: 2.2%, 3.2%), respectively]. The anemia prevalence at 90 d was lower for intervention (29.2%) than for control participants (98.6%) (OR: 0.007; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.04). The daily consumption of an iron-supplement bar leads to increased hemoglobin concentrations and hematocrit percentages and to a lower anemia prevalence in the target population with no reported side effects. This intervention is an attractive option to combat anemia in India. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02032615.

The role of metformin in prostate cancer chemoprevention remains unclear. REDUCE, which followed biopsy-negative men with protocol-dictated PSA-independent biopsies at 2- and 4-years, provides an opportunity to evaluate the link between metformin use and prostate cancer diagnosis with minimal confounding from screening biases. In diabetic men from REDUCE, we tested the association between metformin use, use of other anti-diabetic medications, vs. no anti-diabetic medication use and prostate cancer diagnosis as well as prostate cancer grade (low-grade Gleason 4–6, high-grade Gleason 7–10) using logistic regression. Of the 540 diabetic men with complete data, 205 (38%) did not report use of any anti-diabetic medications, 141 (26%) reported use of at least one anti-diabetic medication other than metformin, and 194 (36%) reported use of metformin. During the 4-year study, 122 men (23%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. After adjusting for various clinical and demographic characteristics, we found that metformin use was not significantly associated with total (OR=1.19, p=0.50), low- (OR=1.01, p=0.96), or high-grade (OR=1.83, p=0.19) prostate cancer diagnosis. Likewise, there was no significant association between the use of non-metformin anti-diabetic medications and prostate cancer risk in both crude (OR=1.02, p=0.95) and multivariable analysis (OR=0.85, p=0.56). Furthermore, the interactions between anti-diabetic medication use and BMI, geographic location, coronary artery disease, smoking, and treatment group were not significant (all p>0.05). Among diabetic men with a negative pre-study biopsy who all underwent biopsies largely independent of PSA, metformin use was not associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer diagnosis.

Among men with prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL and clinical stage T1c/T2a, those in grade group 2 with ≤2 total positive cores have similar rates of adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence as men with grade group 1.

6 Background: Study compliance is crucial when the study outcome is determined by an invasive procedure, such as prostate biopsy. To investigate predictors of compliance in study-mandated prostate biopsies, we analyzed demographic, clinical and reported lifestyle data from the REDUCE trial. Methods: We retrospectively identified 8,062 men from REDUCE with at least 2-years of follow-up, and used multivariable logistic regression to test the association between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and undergoing the study-mandated prostate biopsy at 2 years. We then examined whether missing any of these data was associated with undergoing a biopsy. Results: In REDUCE, 20% of men did not undergo a 2-year biopsy.On multivariable analysis, non-North American region was predictive of 35-55% increased likelihood of undergoing a 2-year biopsy (p ≤ 0.001). Being enrolled at a center that enrolled >10 subjects (2nd and 3rd tertile) was associated with a 40-49% increased likelihood of undergoing a 2-year biopsy (p < 0.001). Missing one or more baseline variables was associated with a 25% decreased likelihood of undergoing a 2-year biopsy (OR = 0.75; p = 0.002). Conclusions: In REDUCE, men outside North America, those at higher volume centers, and those with complete baseline data were more likely to undergo study mandated 2-year biopsies. Given prostate biopsy is becoming increasingly utilized as an endpoint in trials that are often multi-national, regional differences in compliance should be considered when designing future trials. Likewise, efforts are needed to ensure compliance in low-volume centers or among subjects missing baseline data.