Patterns of finasteride and dutasteride use in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial cohort: effects of socio-demographic factors and a black box warning

Background: Five-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), specifically finasteride and dutasteride, have been shown to significantly reduce prostate cancer incidence. However, these agents were also associated with a significant increase in the detection of high-grade prostate cancer leading to an FDA black box warning in 2011. Little is known about the effect of this warning on the subsequent use of these 5-ARIs. The purpose of this analysis was to assess use patterns of finasteride and dutasteride before and after the black box warning. Methods: This cohort study evaluated men enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial who had ≥12 months of Medicare Part D coverage from 2008 to 2015, and had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer through 2007. Socio-demographic factors and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) status were ascertained from follow-up questionnaires, while medication use was ascertained from linkage to Medicare Part D claims data. Results: Of 14,833 eligible men, 88.7% identified as non-Hispanic white, 1.7% as African-American, 5.2% as Asian/Pacific Islander and 1.7% as Hispanic. The median age was 72 years; 41.8% reported a BPH diagnosis. Only 13.6% and 4% of the population took finasteride or dutasteride, respectively, at any time from 2008 to 2015. During this period, finasteride use significantly increased from 3.6% to 9.7% and was highest among men with BPH; dutasteride use remained low and decreased from 2.8% to 1.9%. Conclusions: Finasteride use significantly increased after the FDA’s 2011 black box warning, while dutasteride use remained low and steady throughout the study period

Tissue Effects in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Short-term Finasteride in Early Prostate Cancer.

BackgroundIn the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, finasteride selectively suppressed low-grade prostate cancer and significantly reduced the incidence of prostate cancer in men treated with finasteride compared with placebo. However, an apparent increase in high-grade disease was also observed among men randomized to finasteride. We aimed to determine why and hypothesized that there is a grade-dependent response to finasteride.MethodsFrom 2007 to 2012, we randomized dynamically by intranet-accessible software 183 men with localized prostate cancer to receive 5mg finasteride or placebo daily in a double-blind study during the 4-6weeks preceding prostatectomy. As the primary end point, the expression of a predefined molecular signature (ERβ, UBE2C, SRD5A2, and VEGF) differentiating high- and low-grade tumors in Gleason grade (GG) 3 areas of finasteride-exposed tumors from those in GG3 areas of placebo-exposed tumors, adjusted for Gleason score (GS) at prostatectomy, was compared. We also determined androgen receptor (AR) levels, Ki-67, and cleaved caspase 3 to evaluate the effects of finasteride on the expression of its downstream target, cell proliferation, and apoptosis, respectively. The expression of these markers was also compared across grades between and within treatment groups. Logistic regression was used to assess the expression of markers.FindingsWe found that the predetermined molecular signature did not distinguish GG3 from GG4 areas in the placebo group. However, AR expression was significantly lower in the GG4 areas of the finasteride group than in those of the placebo group. Within the finasteride group, AR expression was also lower in GG4 than in GG3 areas, but not significantly. Expression of cleaved caspase 3 was significantly increased in both GG3 and GG4 areas in the finasteride group compared to the placebo group, although it was lower in GG4 than in GG3 areas in both groups.InterpretationWe showed that finasteride's effect on apoptosis and AR expression is tumor grade dependent after short-term intervention. This may explain finasteride's selective suppression of low-grade tumors observed in the PCPT

Reasons given by general practitioners for non-treatment decisions in younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a survey study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: <it>Mild hyperglycaemia</it>, <it>Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents</it>, <it>Comorbidities and polypharmacy</it>, and <it>Patient-related reasons</it>. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Non-treatment reasons related to <it>Mild hyperglycaemia </it>were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, <it>Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents </it>(46% vs. 38%) and <it>Comorbidities and polypharmacy </it>(33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the <it>Patient-related reasons </it>category. The GP-reported HbA_1cthreshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>GPs selected reasons related to <it>Mild hyperglycaemia </it>for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA_1cvalue ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.</p

Reasons of general practitioners for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication to patients with diabetes: a qualitative study

Background: Lipid-lowering medication remains underused, even in high-risk populations. The objective of this study was to determine factors underlying general practitioners' decisions not to prescribe such drugs to patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews using real cases was conducted to explore reasons for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication after a guideline was distributed that recommended the use of statins in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands, and analysed using an analytic inductive approach. Results: Reasons for not-prescribing could be divided into patient and physician-attributed factors. According to the GPs, some patients do not follow-up on agreed medication and others object to taking lipid-lowering medication, partly for legitimate reasons such as expected or perceived side effects. Furthermore, the GPs themselves perceived reservations for prescribing lipid-lowering medication in patients with short life expectancy, expected compliance problems or near goal lipid levels. GPs sometimes postponed the start of treatment because of other priorities. Finally, barriers were seen in the GPs' practice organisation, and at the primary-secondary care interface. Conclusion: Some of the barriers mentioned by GPs seem to be valid reasons, showing that guideline non-adherence can be quite rational. On the other hand, treatment quality could improve by addressing issues, such as lack of knowledge or motivation of both the patient and the GP. More structured management in general practice may also lead to better treatment

Differential Effects of Comorbidity on Antihypertensive and Glucose-Regulating Treatment in Diabetes Mellitus – A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is often mentioned as interfering with "optimal" treatment decisions in diabetes care. It is suggested that diabetes- related comorbidity will increase adequate treatment, whereas diabetes- unrelated comorbidity may decrease this process of care. We hypothesized that these effects differ according to expected priority of the conditions. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship between comorbidity and treatment intensification in a study of 11,248 type 2 diabetes patients using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. We formed a cohort of patients with a systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg (6,820 hypertensive diabetics), and a cohort of patients with an HbA1c >/= 7% (3,589 hyperglycemic diabetics) in 2007. We differentiated comorbidity by diabetes-related or unrelated conditions and by priority. High priority conditions include conditions that are life- interfering, incident or requiring new medication treatment. We performed Cox regression analyses to assess association with treatment intensification, defined as dose increase, start, or addition of drugs. RESULTS: In both the hypertensive and hyperglycemic cohort, only patients with incident diabetes-related comorbidity had a higher chance of treatment intensification (HR 4.48, 2.33-8.62 (p<0.001) for hypertensives; HR 2.37, 1.09-5.17 (p = 0.030) for hyperglycemics). Intensification of hypertension treatment was less likely when a new glucose-regulating drug was prescribed (HR 0.24, 0.06-0.97 (p = 0.046)). None of the prevalent or unrelated comorbidity was significantly associated with treatment intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-related comorbidity induced better risk factor treatment only for incident cases, implying that appropriate care is provided more often when complications occur. Diabetes- unrelated comorbidity did not affect hypertension or hyperglycemia management, even when it was incident or life-interfering. Thus, the observed "undertreatment" in diabetes care cannot be explained by constraints caused by such comorbidity

Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems

Background: Problem exploration includes identifying, framing, and defining design problems and bounding problem spaces. Intentional and unintentional changes in problem understanding naturally occur as designers explore design problems to create solutions. Through problem exploration, new perspectives on the problem can emerge along with new and diverse ideas for solutions. By considering multiple problem perspectives varying in scope and focus, designers position themselves to increase their understandings of the “real” problem and engage in more diverse idea generation processes leading to an increasing variety of potential solutions. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to investigate systematic patterns in problem exploration in the early design phases of mechanical engineers. Design/Method: Thirty-five senior undergraduate students and experienced designers with mechanical engineering backgrounds worked individually following a think-aloud protocol. They explored problems and generated solutions for two of four randomly assigned design problems. After generating solutions, participants framed and rewrote problem statements to reflect their perspectives on the design problem their solutions addressed. Thematic analysis and a priori codes guided the identification of problem exploration patterns within and across problems. Results: The set of patterns in engineers\u27 problem exploration that emerged from the analysis documents alternative strategies in exploring problems to arrive at solutions. The results provide evidence that engineering designers, working individually, apply both problem-specific and more general strategies to explore design problems. Conclusions: Our study identified common patterns in the explorations of presented problems by individual engineering designers. The observed patterns, described as Problem Exploration Perspectives, capture alternative approaches to discovering problems and taking multiple problem perspectives during design. Learning about Problem Exploration Perspectives may be helpful in creating alternative perspectives on a design problem, potentially leading to more varied and innovative solutions. This paper concludes with an extended example illustrating the process of applying Problem Exploration Perspectives to move between problem perspectives to generate varied design outcomes

Serum estrogen levels and prostate cancer risk in the prostate cancer prevention trial: a nested case–control study

OBJECTIVE: Finasteride reduces prostate cancer risk by blocking the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. However, whether finasteride affects estrogens levels or change in estrogens affects prostate cancer risk is unknown. METHODS: These questions were investigated in a case-control study nested within the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) with 1,798 biopsy-proven prostate cancer cases and 1,798 matched controls. RESULTS: Among men on placebo, no relationship of serum estrogens with risk of prostate cancer was found. Among those on finasteride, those in the highest quartile of baseline estrogen levels had a moderately increased risk of Gleason score < 7 prostate cancer (for estrone, odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-2.15; for estradiol, OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.03-2.18). Finasteride treatment increased serum estrogen concentrations; however, these changes were not associated with prostate cancer risk. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm those from previous studies that there are no associations of serum estrogen with prostate cancer risk in untreated men. In addition, finasteride results in a modest increase in serum estrogen levels, which are not related to prostate cancer risk. Whether finasteride is less effective in men with high serum estrogens, or finasteride interacts with estrogen to increase cancer risk, is uncertain and warrants further investigation

Repressive Effects of Resveratrol on Androgen Receptor Transcriptional Activity

The chemopreventive effects of resveratrol (RSV) on prostate cancer have been well established; the androgen receptor (AR) plays pivotal roles in prostatic tumorigenesis. However, the exact underlying molecular mechanisms about the effects of RSV on AR have not been fully elucidated. A model system is needed to determine whether and how RSV represses AR transcriptional activity.The AR cDNA was first cloned into the retroviral vector pOZ-N and then integrated into the genome of AR-negative HeLa cells to generate the AR(+) cells. The constitutively expressed AR was characterized by monitoring hormone-stimulated nuclear translocation, DNA binding, and transcriptional activation, with the AR(-) cells serving as controls. AR(+) cells were treated with RSV, and both AR protein levels and AR transcriptional activity were measured simultaneously. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays were used to detect the effects of RSV on the recruitment of AR to its cognate element (ARE).AR in the AR (+) stable cell line functions in a manner similar to that of endogenously expressed AR. Using this model system we clearly demonstrated that RSV represses AR transcriptional activity independently of any effects on AR protein levels. However, neither the hormone-mediated nucleus translocation nor the AR/ARE interaction was affected by RSV treatment.We demonstrated unambiguously that RSV regulates AR target gene expression, at least in part, by repressing AR transcriptional activity. Repressive effects of RSV on AR activity result from mechanisms other than the affects of AR nuclear translocation or DNA binding