Type 2 diabetes is traditionally diagnosed by the use of an oral glucose tolerance test and/or HbA1c, both of which require serum collection. Various biomarkers, which are measurable biological substances that provide clinical insight on disease state, have also been effective in the early identification and risk prediction of inflammatory diseases. Measuring biomarker concentrations has traditionally been obtained through serum collection as well. However, numerous biomarkers are detectable in saliva. Salivary analysis has more recently been introduced into research as a potential non-invasive, cost-effective diagnostic for the early identification of type 2 diabetes risk in adults and youth. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to compare 6 established inflammatory biomarkers of type 2 diabetes, in serum and saliva, and determine if similar diagnostic effectiveness is seen in saliva. A lack of standardized salivary analysis, processing, and collection accounts for errors and inconsistencies in conclusive data amongst studies. Proposing a national standardization in salivary analysis, coupled with increased data and research on the utility of saliva as a diagnostic, poses the potential for salivary analysis to be used in diagnostic settings.

No abstract

No abstract

TPS9598 Background: Melanoma (Mel) accounts for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Most patients (pts) with a newly diagnosed Mel have resectable disease and are potentially cured by surgery. However, regional nodal and/or distant relapses can occur after curative-intent resection. Postoperative adjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors improves relapse-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) of pts at high risk of Mel. Fianlimab (anti-LAG-3) and cemiplimab (anti-PD-1) are both high-affinity, fully human, IgG4 monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) that combined have shown high clinical activity in pts with advanced Mel in a phase 1 study. Additionally, combination of relatlimab (anti-LAG-3) and nivolumab (anti-PD-1) have shown superiority over nivolumab for PFS in advanced Mel. These observations provide a rationale for use of fianlimab and cemiplimab combination in high-risk adjuvant Mel. Methods: Our study (NCT05608291) is a three-way, double-blind, phase 3 trial to compare fianlimab + cemiplimab to pembrolizumab in the adjuvant therapy (Rx) of high-risk, resected Mel. The primary objective is RFS, and the secondary objectives are overall survival, safety, pharmacology, and immunogenicity. This international trial will be conducted at 200 sites. Pt eligibilities: (1) ≥12 years of age; (2) Stage IIc, III or IV (all M-stages) and histologically confirmed Mel, completely resected ≤12 weeks prior to randomization; (3) no prior systemic anti-cancer Rx or radiation Rx for Mel in the previous 5 years; (4) no evidence of metastatic disease on staging investigations; and (5) an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 (for adult pts), Karnofsky PS >70 (pts >16 years) or Lansky PS >70 (pts <16 years). Study arms (all Rx every 3 weeks intravenously for one year): A. fianlimab (1600 mg) + cemiplimab (350 mg); B. fianlimab (400 mg) + cemiplimab (350 mg); C. pembrolizumab (200 mg) + saline/dextrose placebo. The placebo controlled trial will enroll about 1530 pts, randomized 1:1:1 to Arms A:B:C, treated for up to 1 year. The trial will stratify by disease stage (stage IIIA vs IIC-IIIB-IIIC vs IIID-IV [M1a/b] vs IV [M1c/d]), and geography (North America vs Europe vs Rest of World). The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed RFS. The secondary endpoints include efficacy (overall survival, DMFS, melanoma-specific survival), safety [treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), interruption or discontinuation of drugs due to TEAEs], pharmacokinetic (concentrations of fianlimab and cemiplimab in serum over time), immunogenicity (anti-drug Abs and neutralizing Abs in serum against fianlimab or cemiplimab), and patient reported outcomes. The first analysis will be performed when 242 RFS events have been observed. Clinical trial information: NCT05608291 .

A complex network of biochemical pathways carries out the process of muscle regeneration/growth following resistance exercise. The initial inflammatory response following muscle damage is primarily mediated by the nuclear factor κ -light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κ B), cyclooxygenase enzymes, and prostaglandins. Muscle damage also stimulates the activation, proliferation, differentiation, migration, and fusion of satellite cells onto damaged myofibers, resulting in myofibrillar hypertrophy. The progression of the myogenic lineage is predominantly coordinated by the wingless/integrated family of glycoproteins which engages in crosstalk with NF-κ B and the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signaling-regulated kinase network. The MAPK cascade is essential for mechanotransduction, the process of converting mechanical stimuli into biochemical responses such as accelerated protein synthesis and satellite cell activation. Muscle protein synthesis is primarily governed by the insulin-like growth factor 1/phosphoinositide 3-kinase/protein kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway. Several calcium-dependent pathways are also integrated into the process of myogenesis and influence skeletal muscle plasticity. These dynamic interactions are part of the anabolic priming by resistance exercise effect, which defines resistance exercise as an acute catabolic event that potentiates multiple downstream anabolic pathways. Plateaus in muscle growth are attributed to deteriorating inflammatory signaling with repeated bouts of muscle damage as well as increasing thresholds for continuous adaptations, which ultimately become unreachable beyond a certain point. The physiological ceiling of skeletal muscle mass is also credited to myostatin. However, recent discoveries suggest the role of myostatin is not limited to preventing excessive skeletal muscle hypertrophy.