Aaron I. Vinik

Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. METHODS We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

Diabetic neuropathies: Update on definitions, diagnostic criteria, estimation of severity, and treatments

Preceding the joint meeting of the 19th annual Diabetic Neuropathy Study Group of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (NEURODIAB) and the 8th International Symposium on Diabetic Neuropathy in Toronto, Canada, 13–18 October 2009, expert panels were convened to provide updates on classification, definitions, diagnostic criteria, and treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathies (DPNs), autonomic neuropathy, painful DPNs, and structural alterations in DPNs.

Cloning and sequencing of the pancreatic islet neogenesis associated protein (INGAP) gene and its expression in islet neogenesis in hamsters.

Induction of islet neogenesis by cellophane wrapping (CW) reverses streptozotocin-induced (STZ) diabetes. Administration of Ilotropin, a protein extract isolated from CW pancreata, causes recapitulation of normal islet ontogeny and reverses STZ diabetes, reducing mortality by 50%. We investigated the hypothesis that a novel gene encoding a constituent of Ilotropin was expressed in the hamster pancreas undergoing islet neogenesis. Islet neogenesis associated protein (INGAP) is a product of a novel gene expressed in regenerating hamster pancreas. Northern blot analysis showed a strong single transcript of 850 bp at 1 and 2 d after CW that disappeared by the 6th day and was absent from untreated control pancreata. INGAP gene is expressed in acinar cells, but not in islets. Western blot analysis demonstrated the presence of INGAP in Ilotropin but not in extracts from control pancreata. A synthetic pentadecapeptide, corresponding to a region unique to INGAP, stimulated a 2.4-fold increase in [3H]thymidine incorporation into hamster duct epithelium in primary culture and a rat pancreatic duct cell line but had no effect on a hamster insulinoma tumor cell line. A portion of human INGAP gene was cloned and appears to be highly homologous to the hamster gene. This data suggests that the INGAP gene is a novel pancreatic gene expressed during islet neogenesis whose protein product is a constituent of Ilotropin and is capable of initiating duct cell proliferation, a prerequisite for islet neogenesis.

Topiramate vs placebo in painful diabetic neuropathy Analgesic and metabolic effects

Background: Using identical methods, three simultaneous placebo-controlled trials of topiramate for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) did not reach significance. This independent yet concurrent placebo-controlled trial used different methods to assess topiramate efficacy and tolerability in PDN. Methods: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial included 323 subjects with PDN and pain visual analog (PVA) score of at least 40 on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst possible pain). Topiramate (n = 214) or placebo (n = 109) was titrated to 400 mg daily or maximum tolerated dose. Short-acting rescue analgesics were permitted only during the first 6 weeks. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups except for mean body weight (topiramate, 101.4 kg; placebo, 95.7 kg; p = 0.028). Twelve weeks of topiramate treatment reduced PVA scale score (from 68.0 to 46.2 mm) more effectively than placebo (from 69.1 to 54.0 mm; p = 0.038). Fifty percent of topiramate-treated subjects and 34% of placebo-treated subjects responded to treatment, defined as >30% reduction in PVA scale score (p = 0.004). Topiramate monotherapy also reduced worst pain intensity (p = 0.003 vs placebo) and sleep disruption (p = 0.020 vs placebo). Diarrhea, loss of appetite, and somnolence were the most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group. Topiramate reduced body weight (−2.6 vs +0.2 kg for placebo; p < 0.001) without disrupting glycemic control. Conclusions: Topiramate monotherapy reduced pain and body weight more effectively than placebo in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY - CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING A DIABETES MELLITUS COMPREHENSIVE CARE PLAN - 2015

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice are systematically developed statements to assist healthcare professionals in medical decision making for specific clinical conditions. Most of the content herein is based on literature reviews. In areas of uncertainty, professional judgment was applied. These guidelines are a working document that reflects the state of the field at the time of publication. Because rapid changes in this area are expected, periodic revisions are inevitable. We encourage medical professionals to use this information in conjunction with their best clinical judgment. The presented recommendations may not be appropriate in all situations. Any decision by practitioners to apply these guidelines must be made in light of local resources and individual patient circumstances. Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascu...

Electron microscopic investigation of the effects of diabetes mellitus on the Achilles tendon

Fine structural changes in the Achilles tendons of patients with long-term diabetes mellitus were investigated. All patients had clinical and electrophysiological evidence of diabetic neuropathy and had ulceration and/or Charcot neuroarthropathy. Several differences between tendons of diabetic (n = 12) and nondiabetic (n = 5) individuals were observed by electron microscopy. In diabetics, these differences included increased packing density of collagen fibrils, decreases in fibrillar diameter, and abnormal fibril morphology. In one diabetic patient, individual collagen fibrils were tightly apposed so that many areas of tendon appeared as a single mass of closely adhering fibrillae. In addition, foci in which collagen fibrils appeared twisted, curved, overlapping and otherwise highly disorganized were common in specimens from most patients (11 of 12). These morphologic abnormalities in the Achilles tendons of diabetics appear to reflect a poorly known process of structural reorganization that may be the result of nonenzymatic glycation expressed over many years. Such structural changes could contribute to the tightening of the Achilles tendor a phenomenon consistent with clinical observations of extreme shortening of the Achilles tendon-gastrocnemius-soleus complex common in advanced diabetic neuropaths. In patients with diabetic neuropathy, tendon shortening causes severe equinus that may precipitate serious ulceration, stress fractures, and Charcot collapse of the foot. However, in nondiabetics, the fine structure of the Achilles tendon appears normal, consistent with the finding that the ultrastructural changes result from diabetes rather than neuropathy.

Diabetic neuropathy: pathogenesis and therapy

Diabetic neuropathies are complex, heterogeneous disorders that encompass a wide range of abnormalities affecting both peripheral and autonomic nervous systems, causing considerable morbidity and mortality. Treatment should be based upon the underlying etiology and not symptoms alone, although symptomatic therapy is needed. Neuropathies may be focal or diffuse, proximal or distal, and involve somatic and autonomic nerves. Focal syndromes are classified as (1) entrapment syndromes or (2) mononeuropathies. Entrapment syndromes are treated by means of relieving compression within confined spaces. Mononeuropathies are due to a vascular insult and resolve spontaneously. They are best treated by supportive therapy. Proximal neuropathies are usually due to an inflammatory, vasculitic, or autoimmune condition and are best treated with specific therapies for the underlying disorder based on biopsy findings. Therapies for distal polyneuropathies include metabolic treatments (e.g., aldose reductase inhibitors, aminoguanidine, gamma-linolenic acid), autoimmune therapies, and nerve growth factors. No definitive treatment is available for painful diabetic neuropathy. Several medications have been used, among them tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, phenothiazines, calcitonin, local anesthetics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and dextromethorphan. Nonpharmacologic therapies include surgical sympathectomy, spinal cord blockade, electrical spinal cord stimulation, and prostaglandin.

Efficacy and Safety of Antioxidant Treatment With α-Lipoic Acid Over 4 Years in Diabetic Polyneuropathy: The NATHAN 1 Trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of α-lipoic acid (ALA) over 4 years in mild-to-moderate diabetic distal symmetric sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In a multicenter randomized double-blind parallel-group trial, 460 diabetic patients with mild-to-moderate DSPN were randomly assigned to oral treatment with 600 mg ALA once daily (n = 233) or placebo (n = 227) for 4 years. Primary end point was a composite score (Neuropathy Impairment Score [NIS]–Lower Limbs [NIS-LL] and seven neurophysiologic tests). Secondary outcome measures included NIS, NIS-LL, nerve conduction, and quantitative sensory tests (QSTs). RESULTS Change in primary end point from baseline to 4 years showed no significant difference between treatment groups (P = 0.105). Change from baseline was significantly better with ALA than placebo for NIS (P = 0.028), NIS-LL (P = 0.05), and NIS-LL muscular weakness subscore (P = 0.045). More patients showed a clinically meaningful improvement and fewer showed progression of NIS (P = 0.013) and NIS-LL (P = 0.025) with ALA than with placebo. Nerve conduction and QST results did not significantly worsen with placebo. Global assessment of treatment tolerability and discontinuations due to lack of tolerability did not differ between the groups. The rates of serious adverse events were higher on ALA (38.1%) than on placebo (28.0%). CONCLUSIONS Four-year treatment with ALA in mild-to-moderate DSPN did not influence the primary composite end point but resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement and prevention of progression of neuropathic impairments and was well tolerated. Because the primary composite end point did not deteriorate significantly in placebo-treated subjects, secondary prevention of its progression by ALA according to the trial design was not feasible.

NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumor.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, slow-growing neoplasms characterized by their ability to store and secrete different peptides and neuroamines. 1 Some of these substances cause specific clinical syndromes, 2 whereas other may have elevated plasma or urine levels that are not associated with specific syndromes or symptom complexes Unfortunately, there is no Bideal neuroendocrine tumor marker,[ 3 but according to the presentation, the sensitivity and specificity of each marker vary, and it is generally possible to choose those of greatest value for each clinical syndrome. The biochemical markers are those hormones or amines secreted by the neuroendocrine cells from which these tumors are derived. Some of these are not specific to any tumor, but are produced and secreted by most NETs, whereas other biochemical markers are more specific to the type of tumor and where their quantification can lead to the suspicion or confirmation of the presence of such a tumor. The annual incidence of NETs has risen to 40 to 50 cases per million, perhaps because of better diagnosis and the availability of highly specific and sensitive ways to measure these tumors’ products, improved immunohistochemistry, and enhanced techniques for tumor detection. Thus, the perceived increase in incidence may not be a real change in the incidence of the disease. There are a number of impediments to the diagnosis of these tumors. They are rare, comprising less than 2% of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, and are therefore not high on the list of causes of specific symptom complexes. Symptoms themselves are often nonspecific and do not lend themselves readily to identifying the specific underlying tumor. In addition, the manifestations are protean and mimic a variety of disorders. Tumors may be found incidentally on laparoscopy for abdominal pain or during the surgical removal of an appendix or even during a computerized tomographic scan of the abdomen for unexplained symptoms. Lung carcinoids may present with hemoptysis or asthma-like symptoms, and midgut carcinoids may be confused with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The natural history of this disease is invariably attended by a long history of vague abdominal symptoms, a series of visits to a primary care practitioner, and referral to a gastroenterologist, often with a misdiagnosis of IBS. These symptoms persist with a median latency to correct diagnosis of 9.2 years by which time the tumor has metastasized, causing symptoms such as flushing and diarrhea and progressing on its slow but relentless course until the patient dies. Clearly, a greater index of suspicion and a carcinoid tumor profile screen are warranted for all patients presenting with Btraditional IBS symptoms.[ Midgut carcinoids are associated with mesenteric fibrosis, which can compress mesenteric vessels and cause bowel ischemia and malabsorption, which may be found in the absence of an abdominal mass. The diagnosis of metastases to the liver is generally more obvious but often still takes place only after a delay of many years. Even then, an incorrect diagnosis is not uncommon. Unless biopsy material is examined for the secretory peptides chromogranin, synaptophysin, or neuron-specific enolase (NSE), tumors may be labeled erroneously as adenocarcinoma, with a negative impact on physician’s attitudes regarding management and underestimation of prospects for survival. 4 The common symptomatic manifestations of patients with carcinoid tumors are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2. Flushing

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: consensus recommendations on diagnosis, assessment and management

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is common, is associated with significant reduction in quality of life and poses major treatment challenges to the practising physician. Although poor glucose control and cardiovascular risk factors have been proven to contribute to the aetiology of DPN, risk factors specific for painful DPN remain unknown. A number of instruments have been tested to assess the character, intensity and impact of painful DPN on quality of life, activities of daily living and mood. Management of the patient with DPN must be tailored to individual requirements, taking into consideration the co‐morbidities and other factors. Pharmacological agents with proven efficacy for painful DPN include tricyclic anti‐depressants, the selective serotonin and noradrenaline re‐uptake inhibitors, anti‐convulsants, opiates, membrane stabilizers, the anti‐oxidant alpha‐lipoic acid and topical agents including capsaicin. Current first‐line therapies for painful DPN include tricyclic anti‐depressants, the serotonin and noradrenaline re‐uptake inhibitor duloxetine and the anti‐convulsants pregabalin and gabapentin. When prescribing any of these agents, other co‐morbidities and costs must be taken into account. Second‐line approaches include the use of opiates such as synthetic opioid tramadol, morphine and oxycodone‐controlled release. There is a limited literature with regard to combination treatment. In extreme cases of painful DPN unresponsive to pharmacotherapy, occasional use of electrical spinal cord stimulation might be indicated. There are a number of unmet needs in the therapeutic management of painful DPN. These include the need for randomized controlled trials with active comparators and data on the long‐term efficacy of agents used, as most trials have lasted for less than 6 months. Finally, there is a need for appropriately designed studies to investigate non‐pharmacological approaches. Copyright