Using lithium as a neuroprotective agent in patients with cancer

Neurocognitive impairment is being increasingly recognized as an important issue in patients with cancer who develop cognitive difficulties either as part of direct or indirect involvement of the nervous system or as a consequence of either chemotherapy-related or radiotherapy-related complications. Brain radiotherapy in particular can lead to significant cognitive defects. Neurocognitive decline adversely affects quality of life, meaningful employment, and even simple daily activities. Neuroprotection may be a viable and realistic goal in preventing neurocognitive sequelae in these patients, especially in the setting of cranial irradiation. Lithium is an agent that has been in use for psychiatric disorders for decades, but recently there has been emerging evidence that it can have a neuroprotective effect.This review discusses neurocognitive impairment in patients with cancer and the potential for investigating the use of lithium as a neuroprotectant in such patients.<br /

Using lithium as a neuroprotective agent in patients with cancer

Neurocognitive impairment is being increasingly recognized as an important issue in patients with cancer who develop cognitive difficulties either as part of direct or indirect involvement of the nervous system or as a consequence of either chemotherapy-related or radiotherapy-related complications. Brain radiotherapy in particular can lead to significant cognitive defects. Neurocognitive decline adversely affects quality of life, meaningful employment, and even simple daily activities. Neuroprotection may be a viable and realistic goal in preventing neurocognitive sequelae in these patients, especially in the setting of cranial irradiation. Lithium is an agent that has been in use for psychiatric disorders for decades, but recently there has been emerging evidence that it can have a neuroprotective effect.This review discusses neurocognitive impairment in patients with cancer and the potential for investigating the use of lithium as a neuroprotectant in such patients.<br /

A Randomized Clinical Trial Assessing Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use With Standardized Education With or Without a Family Behavioral Intervention Compared With Fingerstick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Very Young Children With Type 1 Diabetes.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to &lt;8 years with type 1 diabetes.Research design and methodsThis was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to &lt;8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.ResultsApproximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI -0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (-2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (-0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level &lt;70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P &lt; 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P &lt; 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002).ConclusionsCGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being

Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control: The Pivotal International Diabetes Closed-Loop Trial

International audienceBackground: Closed-loop control (CLC) has been shown to improve glucose time in range and other glucose metrics; however, randomized trials >3 months comparing CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy are limited. We recently reported glucose control outcomes from the 6-month international Diabetes Closed-Loop (iDCL) trial; we now report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this iDCL trial. Methods: Participants were randomized 2:1 to CLC (N = 112) versus SAP (N = 56) and completed questionnaires, including Hypoglycemia Fear Survey, Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), Hypoglycemia Awareness, Hypoglycemia Confidence, Hyperglycemia Avoidance, and Positive Expectancies of CLC (INSPIRE) at baseline, 3, and 6 months. CLC participants also completed Diabetes Technology Expectations and Acceptance and System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey Behavior subscale improved significantly after 6 months of CLC compared with SAP. DDS did not differ except for powerless subscale scores, which worsened at 3 months in SAP. Whereas Hypoglycemia Awareness and Hyperglycemia Avoidance did not differ between groups, CLC participants showed a tendency toward improved confidence in managing hypoglycemia. The INSPIRE questionnaire showed favorable scores in the CLC group for teens and parents, with a similar trend for adults. At baseline and 6 months, CLC participants had high positive expectations for the device with Diabetes Technology Acceptance and SUS showing high benefit and low burden scores. Conclusion: CLC improved some PROs compared with SAP. Participants reported high benefit and low burden with CLC. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03563313