Video

AMSTERDAM – An investigational HIV vaccine that recently began testing in a phase IIb trial showed durable safety and anti-HIV immune responses out to 1 year following the final dosage in the initial phase I/IIa trial that had identified the most effective dosing strategy for the vaccine.

The 96-week follow-up data showed durable humoral and cellular immunity induction by the vaccine and its associated booster, a durable breadth of immune responses to the multiple HIV clades that the vaccine targets, and no serious or grade 3 or 4 adverse effects in the 393 people who participated in the early-phase study, Frank L. Tomaka, MD, said at the 22nd International AIDS Conference.

The 96-week results he reported came from follow-up of the 393 people who received one of several different dosing regimens for an engineered, mosaic HIV vaccine. The vaccine incorporates genes for three different HIV envelope antigens that contain components drawn from several different HIV clades (to induce more broadly protective immunity) into a serotype 26 adenovirus. The immunization regimen also includes treatment with HIV glycoprotein 140 as a booster agent. Dr. Tomaka and his associates reported the primary endpoints from this placebo-controlled study, APPROACH, measured just after the fourth and final immunizing regimen at 48 weeks after the first treatment in a recently published article (Lancet. 2018 Jul 21;392[10143]:232-43).

As part of the study, the investigators administered the vaccine and booster to rhesus monkeys and found that the regimens produced a pattern of immune responses in the monkeys similar to that seen in people. When the monkeys that received the regimen that performed best in people received six monthly challenges with a simian-human immunodeficiency virus that’s related to HIV, the researchers found a 67% efficacy for protection against infection. These “very encouraging” findings led the company developing the vaccine to launch in November 2017 a phase IIb trial, named Imbokodo, in five African countries, with a plan to enroll 2,600 people, Dr. Tomaka said.

“What’s unique and very exciting” about the APPROACH findings are the nonhuman primate findings, and the fact that the vaccine was designed to provide protection against several different HIV clades, Dr. Tomaka said in a video interview. The 67% level of protection against viral challenge in the monkeys is at a level that would be clinically meaningful if replicated in people. A vaccine and booster regimen that provided something in the range of 50%-60% protection or better might be an attractive option in a region with relatively low resources, while in a more developed country a vaccine with a protective efficacy of 70% or better would also likely be seen as an attractive intervention, said Dr. Tomaka, clinical leader for HIV/STI vaccines for Janssen in Titusville, N.J.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tomaka FL et al. AIDS 2018, Abstract TUAA0104.

AMSTERDAM – An investigational HIV vaccine that recently began testing in a phase IIb trial showed durable safety and anti-HIV immune responses out to 1 year following the final dosage in the initial phase I/IIa trial that had identified the most effective dosing strategy for the vaccine.

The 96-week follow-up data showed durable humoral and cellular immunity induction by the vaccine and its associated booster, a durable breadth of immune responses to the multiple HIV clades that the vaccine targets, and no serious or grade 3 or 4 adverse effects in the 393 people who participated in the early-phase study, Frank L. Tomaka, MD, said at the 22nd International AIDS Conference.

The 96-week results he reported came from follow-up of the 393 people who received one of several different dosing regimens for an engineered, mosaic HIV vaccine. The vaccine incorporates genes for three different HIV envelope antigens that contain components drawn from several different HIV clades (to induce more broadly protective immunity) into a serotype 26 adenovirus. The immunization regimen also includes treatment with HIV glycoprotein 140 as a booster agent. Dr. Tomaka and his associates reported the primary endpoints from this placebo-controlled study, APPROACH, measured just after the fourth and final immunizing regimen at 48 weeks after the first treatment in a recently published article (Lancet. 2018 Jul 21;392[10143]:232-43).

As part of the study, the investigators administered the vaccine and booster to rhesus monkeys and found that the regimens produced a pattern of immune responses in the monkeys similar to that seen in people. When the monkeys that received the regimen that performed best in people received six monthly challenges with a simian-human immunodeficiency virus that’s related to HIV, the researchers found a 67% efficacy for protection against infection. These “very encouraging” findings led the company developing the vaccine to launch in November 2017 a phase IIb trial, named Imbokodo, in five African countries, with a plan to enroll 2,600 people, Dr. Tomaka said.

“What’s unique and very exciting” about the APPROACH findings are the nonhuman primate findings, and the fact that the vaccine was designed to provide protection against several different HIV clades, Dr. Tomaka said in a video interview. The 67% level of protection against viral challenge in the monkeys is at a level that would be clinically meaningful if replicated in people. A vaccine and booster regimen that provided something in the range of 50%-60% protection or better might be an attractive option in a region with relatively low resources, while in a more developed country a vaccine with a protective efficacy of 70% or better would also likely be seen as an attractive intervention, said Dr. Tomaka, clinical leader for HIV/STI vaccines for Janssen in Titusville, N.J.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tomaka FL et al. AIDS 2018, Abstract TUAA0104.

AMSTERDAM – An investigational HIV vaccine that recently began testing in a phase IIb trial showed durable safety and anti-HIV immune responses out to 1 year following the final dosage in the initial phase I/IIa trial that had identified the most effective dosing strategy for the vaccine.

The 96-week follow-up data showed durable humoral and cellular immunity induction by the vaccine and its associated booster, a durable breadth of immune responses to the multiple HIV clades that the vaccine targets, and no serious or grade 3 or 4 adverse effects in the 393 people who participated in the early-phase study, Frank L. Tomaka, MD, said at the 22nd International AIDS Conference.

The 96-week results he reported came from follow-up of the 393 people who received one of several different dosing regimens for an engineered, mosaic HIV vaccine. The vaccine incorporates genes for three different HIV envelope antigens that contain components drawn from several different HIV clades (to induce more broadly protective immunity) into a serotype 26 adenovirus. The immunization regimen also includes treatment with HIV glycoprotein 140 as a booster agent. Dr. Tomaka and his associates reported the primary endpoints from this placebo-controlled study, APPROACH, measured just after the fourth and final immunizing regimen at 48 weeks after the first treatment in a recently published article (Lancet. 2018 Jul 21;392[10143]:232-43).

As part of the study, the investigators administered the vaccine and booster to rhesus monkeys and found that the regimens produced a pattern of immune responses in the monkeys similar to that seen in people. When the monkeys that received the regimen that performed best in people received six monthly challenges with a simian-human immunodeficiency virus that’s related to HIV, the researchers found a 67% efficacy for protection against infection. These “very encouraging” findings led the company developing the vaccine to launch in November 2017 a phase IIb trial, named Imbokodo, in five African countries, with a plan to enroll 2,600 people, Dr. Tomaka said.

“What’s unique and very exciting” about the APPROACH findings are the nonhuman primate findings, and the fact that the vaccine was designed to provide protection against several different HIV clades, Dr. Tomaka said in a video interview. The 67% level of protection against viral challenge in the monkeys is at a level that would be clinically meaningful if replicated in people. A vaccine and booster regimen that provided something in the range of 50%-60% protection or better might be an attractive option in a region with relatively low resources, while in a more developed country a vaccine with a protective efficacy of 70% or better would also likely be seen as an attractive intervention, said Dr. Tomaka, clinical leader for HIV/STI vaccines for Janssen in Titusville, N.J.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Tomaka FL et al. AIDS 2018, Abstract TUAA0104.

ORLANDO – Research suggests that HIV-positive people who take the latest generations of AIDS medications are living almost as long as everyone else. But they still face special medical challenges, and an endocrinologist urged colleagues to adjust their approaches to diabetes in these patients.

“The HIV population is indeed aging, diabetes is very common, and there are some unique pathophysiologic and management considerations,” said Todd T. Brown, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

It’s not just a matter of subbing in an alternate drug here or there. When it comes to diabetes, patients with HIV require significant adjustments to diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Brown said.

In terms of diagnosis, treatment guidelines approved by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and ADA recommend that all HIV-positive patients be tested for diabetes before they begin taking antiretroviral therapy. Then, the guidelines suggest, they should be tested 4-6 weeks after initiation of therapy, and every 6-12 months going forward.

“It’s a bit of overkill to go every 6 months,” said Dr. Brown, who prefers an annual testing approach. He added that research has suggested that the 2-hour postload glucose test is more sensitive than the fasting glucose test in some HIV-positive populations. However, he believes that it’s generally fine to give a fasting glucose test before initiation of therapy – and on an annual basis afterward – rather than the more cumbersome postload test.

Still, he said, the postload test may be appropriate in a patient with impaired glucose tolerance “if you really want to make the diagnosis, and especially if you’ll change your treatment based on it.”

Ongoing treatment of HIV-positive patients also presents unique challenges, he said. For one, antiretroviral therapy seems to affect glucose metabolism and body fat, he said, and findings from a 2016 study suggest HIV-positive people who begin antiretroviral therapy face a higher risk of developing diabetes after weight gain (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Oct 1;73[2]:228-36).

One option is to switch patients to integrase inhibitors, but findings from a 2017 study suggested that this may also lead to more weight gain, Dr. Brown said.

“This has been an evolving story,” he said. “The clinical consequences of this are unclear. This is a topic that’s being hotly investigated now in the HIV health world” (JAIDS. 2017 Dec 15;76[5]:527-31).

As for other diabetes management issues, Dr. Brown noted that hemoglobin A_1c tests appear to underestimate glycemia in HIV-infected patients. He suggested that goal HbA_1c levels should be lower in diabetic patients with HIV, especially those with CD4+ counts under 500 cells /mm³ and/or mean cell volume over 100 fL.

Research suggests that lifestyle changes seem to work well in HIV-positive patients, he said, and metformin is the ideal first-line drug treatment just as in the HIV-negative population. “It’s a good drug. We all love it,” he said. “It may improve lipohypertrophy and coronary plaque.”

He added that proteinuria and neuropathy are more common in HIV-positive patients with diabetes. He said levels of neuropathy and nephropathy could be related to AIDS drugs.

On the medication front, Dr. Brown cautioned about certain drugs in HIV-positive patients: The HIV drug dolutegravir increases metformin concentrations by about 80%, he said, and there are concerns about bone and cardiac health in HIV-positive patients who take the diabetes medications known as thiazolidinediones (glitazones).

He added that there are sparse data about the use of several types of diabetes drugs – DPP IV inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors – in HIV-positive patients.

Dr. Brown discloses consulting for Gilead Sciences, ViiV, BMS, Merck, Theratechnologies, and EMD Serono.

ORLANDO – Research suggests that HIV-positive people who take the latest generations of AIDS medications are living almost as long as everyone else. But they still face special medical challenges, and an endocrinologist urged colleagues to adjust their approaches to diabetes in these patients.

“The HIV population is indeed aging, diabetes is very common, and there are some unique pathophysiologic and management considerations,” said Todd T. Brown, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

It’s not just a matter of subbing in an alternate drug here or there. When it comes to diabetes, patients with HIV require significant adjustments to diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Brown said.

In terms of diagnosis, treatment guidelines approved by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and ADA recommend that all HIV-positive patients be tested for diabetes before they begin taking antiretroviral therapy. Then, the guidelines suggest, they should be tested 4-6 weeks after initiation of therapy, and every 6-12 months going forward.

“It’s a bit of overkill to go every 6 months,” said Dr. Brown, who prefers an annual testing approach. He added that research has suggested that the 2-hour postload glucose test is more sensitive than the fasting glucose test in some HIV-positive populations. However, he believes that it’s generally fine to give a fasting glucose test before initiation of therapy – and on an annual basis afterward – rather than the more cumbersome postload test.

Still, he said, the postload test may be appropriate in a patient with impaired glucose tolerance “if you really want to make the diagnosis, and especially if you’ll change your treatment based on it.”

Ongoing treatment of HIV-positive patients also presents unique challenges, he said. For one, antiretroviral therapy seems to affect glucose metabolism and body fat, he said, and findings from a 2016 study suggest HIV-positive people who begin antiretroviral therapy face a higher risk of developing diabetes after weight gain (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Oct 1;73[2]:228-36).

One option is to switch patients to integrase inhibitors, but findings from a 2017 study suggested that this may also lead to more weight gain, Dr. Brown said.

“This has been an evolving story,” he said. “The clinical consequences of this are unclear. This is a topic that’s being hotly investigated now in the HIV health world” (JAIDS. 2017 Dec 15;76[5]:527-31).

As for other diabetes management issues, Dr. Brown noted that hemoglobin A_1c tests appear to underestimate glycemia in HIV-infected patients. He suggested that goal HbA_1c levels should be lower in diabetic patients with HIV, especially those with CD4+ counts under 500 cells /mm³ and/or mean cell volume over 100 fL.

Research suggests that lifestyle changes seem to work well in HIV-positive patients, he said, and metformin is the ideal first-line drug treatment just as in the HIV-negative population. “It’s a good drug. We all love it,” he said. “It may improve lipohypertrophy and coronary plaque.”

He added that proteinuria and neuropathy are more common in HIV-positive patients with diabetes. He said levels of neuropathy and nephropathy could be related to AIDS drugs.

On the medication front, Dr. Brown cautioned about certain drugs in HIV-positive patients: The HIV drug dolutegravir increases metformin concentrations by about 80%, he said, and there are concerns about bone and cardiac health in HIV-positive patients who take the diabetes medications known as thiazolidinediones (glitazones).

He added that there are sparse data about the use of several types of diabetes drugs – DPP IV inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors – in HIV-positive patients.

Dr. Brown discloses consulting for Gilead Sciences, ViiV, BMS, Merck, Theratechnologies, and EMD Serono.

ORLANDO – Research suggests that HIV-positive people who take the latest generations of AIDS medications are living almost as long as everyone else. But they still face special medical challenges, and an endocrinologist urged colleagues to adjust their approaches to diabetes in these patients.

“The HIV population is indeed aging, diabetes is very common, and there are some unique pathophysiologic and management considerations,” said Todd T. Brown, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

It’s not just a matter of subbing in an alternate drug here or there. When it comes to diabetes, patients with HIV require significant adjustments to diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Brown said.

In terms of diagnosis, treatment guidelines approved by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and ADA recommend that all HIV-positive patients be tested for diabetes before they begin taking antiretroviral therapy. Then, the guidelines suggest, they should be tested 4-6 weeks after initiation of therapy, and every 6-12 months going forward.

“It’s a bit of overkill to go every 6 months,” said Dr. Brown, who prefers an annual testing approach. He added that research has suggested that the 2-hour postload glucose test is more sensitive than the fasting glucose test in some HIV-positive populations. However, he believes that it’s generally fine to give a fasting glucose test before initiation of therapy – and on an annual basis afterward – rather than the more cumbersome postload test.

Still, he said, the postload test may be appropriate in a patient with impaired glucose tolerance “if you really want to make the diagnosis, and especially if you’ll change your treatment based on it.”

Ongoing treatment of HIV-positive patients also presents unique challenges, he said. For one, antiretroviral therapy seems to affect glucose metabolism and body fat, he said, and findings from a 2016 study suggest HIV-positive people who begin antiretroviral therapy face a higher risk of developing diabetes after weight gain (J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Oct 1;73[2]:228-36).

One option is to switch patients to integrase inhibitors, but findings from a 2017 study suggested that this may also lead to more weight gain, Dr. Brown said.

“This has been an evolving story,” he said. “The clinical consequences of this are unclear. This is a topic that’s being hotly investigated now in the HIV health world” (JAIDS. 2017 Dec 15;76[5]:527-31).

As for other diabetes management issues, Dr. Brown noted that hemoglobin A_1c tests appear to underestimate glycemia in HIV-infected patients. He suggested that goal HbA_1c levels should be lower in diabetic patients with HIV, especially those with CD4+ counts under 500 cells /mm³ and/or mean cell volume over 100 fL.

Research suggests that lifestyle changes seem to work well in HIV-positive patients, he said, and metformin is the ideal first-line drug treatment just as in the HIV-negative population. “It’s a good drug. We all love it,” he said. “It may improve lipohypertrophy and coronary plaque.”

He added that proteinuria and neuropathy are more common in HIV-positive patients with diabetes. He said levels of neuropathy and nephropathy could be related to AIDS drugs.

On the medication front, Dr. Brown cautioned about certain drugs in HIV-positive patients: The HIV drug dolutegravir increases metformin concentrations by about 80%, he said, and there are concerns about bone and cardiac health in HIV-positive patients who take the diabetes medications known as thiazolidinediones (glitazones).

He added that there are sparse data about the use of several types of diabetes drugs – DPP IV inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors – in HIV-positive patients.

Dr. Brown discloses consulting for Gilead Sciences, ViiV, BMS, Merck, Theratechnologies, and EMD Serono.

Click here to view the articles published in July 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in July 2018.

Click here to view the articles published in July 2018.

ORLANDO – Neither metformin nor insulin glargine followed by metformin improved beta cell function in adolescents with impaired glucose tolerance or early type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the pediatric medication portion of the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study.

The treatments, including either metformin for 12 months in 47 participants or insulin glargine for 3 months followed by metformin for 9 months in 44 participants, were not associated with improvement in beta cell function at 12 months, compared with baseline, according to reports from members of the RISE Consortium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Furthermore, measures of beta cell function worsened in both groups at 15-month follow-up, and the same was true for participants with impaired glucose tolerance only; the outcomes in that subset of patients were similar to the entire group, including patients with early T2DM.

“Beta cell failure progressed despite that intervention, and though both [metformin and insulin glargine] were effective for lowering glucose – and metformin for lowering weight ... it had nothing to do with the natural history of the disease, and that’s really quite disappointing,” John B. Buse, MD, said in a video interview.

But that’s not to say the findings weren’t of value.

“The exciting bit was our greater understanding of what’s different about diabetes in youth, and basically [the findings] showed that, both in the setting of impaired glucose tolerance and early diabetes, youth have more insulin resistance than adults, they have relatively more well-preserved beta cell function – they’re secreting more insulin at both impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, and they have lesser hepatic insulin clearance,” said Dr. Buse, professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dr. Buse provided invited commentary on the findings at the ADA scientific sessions and elaborated on those comments in this interview, noting that, in addition to identifying important differences between children and adults with impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, the RISE study demonstrated that the numerous challenges associated with conducting a major study involving children with impaired glucose tolerance or T2DM can be overcome.

“It’s a really heartwarming story,” he said of the efforts and successes of the RISE investigators in completing the pediatric medication portion of the study. “It at least gives us hope that, even if we haven’t found a cure for type 2 diabetes in children, we at least know we can do the studies.”

Dr. Buse also provided his take on what the future holds for both parts of the RISE study (findings from the adult medication and adult surgery portions are expected to be reported within the next year) and for other studies in children and youth with diabetes; he noted that the current findings and successes in enrolling and completing the pediatric portion of the study highlight multiple opportunities for future research.

Dr. Buse reported financial relationships with Adocia, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Elcelyx, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Metavention, NovaTarg Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, VTV Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson Services, Theracos, Shenzhen Hightide Biopharmaceutical, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, American Diabetes Association, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Neither metformin nor insulin glargine followed by metformin improved beta cell function in adolescents with impaired glucose tolerance or early type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the pediatric medication portion of the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study.

The treatments, including either metformin for 12 months in 47 participants or insulin glargine for 3 months followed by metformin for 9 months in 44 participants, were not associated with improvement in beta cell function at 12 months, compared with baseline, according to reports from members of the RISE Consortium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Furthermore, measures of beta cell function worsened in both groups at 15-month follow-up, and the same was true for participants with impaired glucose tolerance only; the outcomes in that subset of patients were similar to the entire group, including patients with early T2DM.

“Beta cell failure progressed despite that intervention, and though both [metformin and insulin glargine] were effective for lowering glucose – and metformin for lowering weight ... it had nothing to do with the natural history of the disease, and that’s really quite disappointing,” John B. Buse, MD, said in a video interview.

But that’s not to say the findings weren’t of value.

“The exciting bit was our greater understanding of what’s different about diabetes in youth, and basically [the findings] showed that, both in the setting of impaired glucose tolerance and early diabetes, youth have more insulin resistance than adults, they have relatively more well-preserved beta cell function – they’re secreting more insulin at both impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, and they have lesser hepatic insulin clearance,” said Dr. Buse, professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dr. Buse provided invited commentary on the findings at the ADA scientific sessions and elaborated on those comments in this interview, noting that, in addition to identifying important differences between children and adults with impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, the RISE study demonstrated that the numerous challenges associated with conducting a major study involving children with impaired glucose tolerance or T2DM can be overcome.

“It’s a really heartwarming story,” he said of the efforts and successes of the RISE investigators in completing the pediatric medication portion of the study. “It at least gives us hope that, even if we haven’t found a cure for type 2 diabetes in children, we at least know we can do the studies.”

Dr. Buse also provided his take on what the future holds for both parts of the RISE study (findings from the adult medication and adult surgery portions are expected to be reported within the next year) and for other studies in children and youth with diabetes; he noted that the current findings and successes in enrolling and completing the pediatric portion of the study highlight multiple opportunities for future research.

Dr. Buse reported financial relationships with Adocia, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Elcelyx, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Metavention, NovaTarg Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, VTV Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson Services, Theracos, Shenzhen Hightide Biopharmaceutical, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, American Diabetes Association, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Neither metformin nor insulin glargine followed by metformin improved beta cell function in adolescents with impaired glucose tolerance or early type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the pediatric medication portion of the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) study.

The treatments, including either metformin for 12 months in 47 participants or insulin glargine for 3 months followed by metformin for 9 months in 44 participants, were not associated with improvement in beta cell function at 12 months, compared with baseline, according to reports from members of the RISE Consortium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Furthermore, measures of beta cell function worsened in both groups at 15-month follow-up, and the same was true for participants with impaired glucose tolerance only; the outcomes in that subset of patients were similar to the entire group, including patients with early T2DM.

“Beta cell failure progressed despite that intervention, and though both [metformin and insulin glargine] were effective for lowering glucose – and metformin for lowering weight ... it had nothing to do with the natural history of the disease, and that’s really quite disappointing,” John B. Buse, MD, said in a video interview.

But that’s not to say the findings weren’t of value.

“The exciting bit was our greater understanding of what’s different about diabetes in youth, and basically [the findings] showed that, both in the setting of impaired glucose tolerance and early diabetes, youth have more insulin resistance than adults, they have relatively more well-preserved beta cell function – they’re secreting more insulin at both impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, and they have lesser hepatic insulin clearance,” said Dr. Buse, professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Dr. Buse provided invited commentary on the findings at the ADA scientific sessions and elaborated on those comments in this interview, noting that, in addition to identifying important differences between children and adults with impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, the RISE study demonstrated that the numerous challenges associated with conducting a major study involving children with impaired glucose tolerance or T2DM can be overcome.

“It’s a really heartwarming story,” he said of the efforts and successes of the RISE investigators in completing the pediatric medication portion of the study. “It at least gives us hope that, even if we haven’t found a cure for type 2 diabetes in children, we at least know we can do the studies.”

Dr. Buse also provided his take on what the future holds for both parts of the RISE study (findings from the adult medication and adult surgery portions are expected to be reported within the next year) and for other studies in children and youth with diabetes; he noted that the current findings and successes in enrolling and completing the pediatric portion of the study highlight multiple opportunities for future research.

Dr. Buse reported financial relationships with Adocia, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Elcelyx, Eli Lilly, Fractyl Laboratories, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Metavention, NovaTarg Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, VTV Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson Services, Theracos, Shenzhen Hightide Biopharmaceutical, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, American Diabetes Association, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

[email protected]

The mSToPS study “represents an innovative example of the potential (and challenges) inherent in a pragmatic information technology trial. The trial “represents a brave new world for clinical research: an innovative, highly commendable, contemporary pragmatic health care information technology study that tested an important question and yielded significant clinical findings,” wrote two leaders in trial design in an editorial about the study.

In addition, the mHealth Screening to Prevent Strokes (mSToPS) trial tested the utility of a wearable ECG patch to detect new-onset episodes of atrial fibrillation. Thus the study also served as one of the first examples of a trial designed to examine whether a wearable, digital device can transform health care by improving clinical outcomes, an advance that crosses the current “chasm between the technology and clinical worlds,” wrote Eric D. Peterson, MD, and Robert A. Harrington, MD. Their editorial framed mSToPS as a breakthrough in a new type of information technology–based, pragmatic clinical trial (JAMA. 2018 July 10;320[2]:137-8).

Future trials with similar designs and novel health information technology methods could tap into the enormous information contained in electronic health records, wrote Dr. Peterson, a cardiologist, professor of medicine, and executive director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Dr. Harrington, a cardiologist, professor, and chairman of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Dr. Steven R. Steinhubl, lead investigator for the mSToPS trial, agreed with this assessment. Speaking in a video interview in March 2018 during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, where Dr. Steinhubl first reported the mSToPS results, he characterized the trial as “completely reimagining how clinical trials are done,” by making them less expensive and more convenient for participants. In this way, mSToPS is a break from the traditional randomized clinical trial format, which creates an “artificial treatment environment and artificial patient behaviors,” said Dr. Steinhubl, a cardiologist and director of digital medicine at the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

Dr. Peterson has received personal fees from Livogo and has received research funding from Akili, RefleXion Medical, and Verily Life Sciences. Dr. Harrington has been a consultant to Amgen, Element Science, Gilead Sciences, MyoKardia, and WebMD; has served on the board of directors of Signal Path and Scanadu; has received personal fees from Bayer; and has received research funding from Apple, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL, Janssen, Novartis, Portola, Sanofi, and the Medicines Company. Dr. Steinhubl has received research funding from Janssen, DynoSense, EasyG, SpryHealth, and Striiv.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Peterson ED et al. JAMA. 2018 July 10;320[2]:138-9.

The mSToPS study “represents an innovative example of the potential (and challenges) inherent in a pragmatic information technology trial. The trial “represents a brave new world for clinical research: an innovative, highly commendable, contemporary pragmatic health care information technology study that tested an important question and yielded significant clinical findings,” wrote two leaders in trial design in an editorial about the study.

In addition, the mHealth Screening to Prevent Strokes (mSToPS) trial tested the utility of a wearable ECG patch to detect new-onset episodes of atrial fibrillation. Thus the study also served as one of the first examples of a trial designed to examine whether a wearable, digital device can transform health care by improving clinical outcomes, an advance that crosses the current “chasm between the technology and clinical worlds,” wrote Eric D. Peterson, MD, and Robert A. Harrington, MD. Their editorial framed mSToPS as a breakthrough in a new type of information technology–based, pragmatic clinical trial (JAMA. 2018 July 10;320[2]:137-8).

Future trials with similar designs and novel health information technology methods could tap into the enormous information contained in electronic health records, wrote Dr. Peterson, a cardiologist, professor of medicine, and executive director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Dr. Harrington, a cardiologist, professor, and chairman of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Dr. Steven R. Steinhubl, lead investigator for the mSToPS trial, agreed with this assessment. Speaking in a video interview in March 2018 during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, where Dr. Steinhubl first reported the mSToPS results, he characterized the trial as “completely reimagining how clinical trials are done,” by making them less expensive and more convenient for participants. In this way, mSToPS is a break from the traditional randomized clinical trial format, which creates an “artificial treatment environment and artificial patient behaviors,” said Dr. Steinhubl, a cardiologist and director of digital medicine at the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

Dr. Peterson has received personal fees from Livogo and has received research funding from Akili, RefleXion Medical, and Verily Life Sciences. Dr. Harrington has been a consultant to Amgen, Element Science, Gilead Sciences, MyoKardia, and WebMD; has served on the board of directors of Signal Path and Scanadu; has received personal fees from Bayer; and has received research funding from Apple, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL, Janssen, Novartis, Portola, Sanofi, and the Medicines Company. Dr. Steinhubl has received research funding from Janssen, DynoSense, EasyG, SpryHealth, and Striiv.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Peterson ED et al. JAMA. 2018 July 10;320[2]:138-9.

The mSToPS study “represents an innovative example of the potential (and challenges) inherent in a pragmatic information technology trial. The trial “represents a brave new world for clinical research: an innovative, highly commendable, contemporary pragmatic health care information technology study that tested an important question and yielded significant clinical findings,” wrote two leaders in trial design in an editorial about the study.

In addition, the mHealth Screening to Prevent Strokes (mSToPS) trial tested the utility of a wearable ECG patch to detect new-onset episodes of atrial fibrillation. Thus the study also served as one of the first examples of a trial designed to examine whether a wearable, digital device can transform health care by improving clinical outcomes, an advance that crosses the current “chasm between the technology and clinical worlds,” wrote Eric D. Peterson, MD, and Robert A. Harrington, MD. Their editorial framed mSToPS as a breakthrough in a new type of information technology–based, pragmatic clinical trial (JAMA. 2018 July 10;320[2]:137-8).

Future trials with similar designs and novel health information technology methods could tap into the enormous information contained in electronic health records, wrote Dr. Peterson, a cardiologist, professor of medicine, and executive director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Dr. Harrington, a cardiologist, professor, and chairman of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Dr. Steven R. Steinhubl, lead investigator for the mSToPS trial, agreed with this assessment. Speaking in a video interview in March 2018 during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, where Dr. Steinhubl first reported the mSToPS results, he characterized the trial as “completely reimagining how clinical trials are done,” by making them less expensive and more convenient for participants. In this way, mSToPS is a break from the traditional randomized clinical trial format, which creates an “artificial treatment environment and artificial patient behaviors,” said Dr. Steinhubl, a cardiologist and director of digital medicine at the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

Dr. Peterson has received personal fees from Livogo and has received research funding from Akili, RefleXion Medical, and Verily Life Sciences. Dr. Harrington has been a consultant to Amgen, Element Science, Gilead Sciences, MyoKardia, and WebMD; has served on the board of directors of Signal Path and Scanadu; has received personal fees from Bayer; and has received research funding from Apple, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL, Janssen, Novartis, Portola, Sanofi, and the Medicines Company. Dr. Steinhubl has received research funding from Janssen, DynoSense, EasyG, SpryHealth, and Striiv.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Peterson ED et al. JAMA. 2018 July 10;320[2]:138-9.