User login
Debate: Initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes?
SAN DIEGO –
This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects
Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”
In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”
Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.
One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.
“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”
And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”
He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.
More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.
“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.
During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”
All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.
“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.
Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.
And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.
Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.
The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.
The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.
Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.
Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.
While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.
“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost
Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”
He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.
He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”
Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.
“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”
Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”
And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.
Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.
“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.
Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.
“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”
Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.
At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.
Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.
However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.
“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.
“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”
Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO –
This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects
Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”
In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”
Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.
One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.
“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”
And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”
He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.
More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.
“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.
During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”
All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.
“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.
Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.
And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.
Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.
The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.
The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.
Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.
Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.
While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.
“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost
Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”
He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.
He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”
Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.
“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”
Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”
And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.
Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.
“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.
Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.
“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”
Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.
At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.
Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.
However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.
“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.
“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”
Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO –
This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects
Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”
In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”
Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.
One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.
“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”
And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”
He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.
More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.
“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.
During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”
All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.
“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.
Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.
And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.
Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.
The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.
The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.
Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.
Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.
While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.
“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost
Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”
He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.
He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”
Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.
“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”
Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”
And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.
Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.
“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.
Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.
“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”
Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.
At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.
Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.
However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.
“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.
“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”
Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA clears the Tandem Mobi insulin pump
The product is half the size of the company’s t:slim X2 and is now the smallest of the commercially available durable tubed pumps. It is fully controllable from a mobile app through a user’s compatible iPhone.
Features of the Mobi include a 200-unit insulin cartridge and an on-pump button that can be used instead of the phone for bolusing insulin. The device can be clipped to clothing or worn on-body with an adhesive sleeve that is sold separately.
The Mobi is compatible with all existing Tandem-branded infusion sets manufactured by the Convatec Group, and there is a new 5-inch tubing option made just for the Tandem Mobi.
The Mobi is part of a hybrid-closed loop automated delivery system, along with the current Control-IQ technology and a compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The CGM sensor predicts glucose values 30 minutes ahead and adjusts insulin delivery every 5 minutes to prevent highs and lows. Users must still manually bolus for meals. The system can deliver automatic correction boluses for up to 1 hour to prevent hyperglycemia.
Limited release of the Tandem Mobi is expected in late 2023, followed by full commercial availability in early 2024.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The product is half the size of the company’s t:slim X2 and is now the smallest of the commercially available durable tubed pumps. It is fully controllable from a mobile app through a user’s compatible iPhone.
Features of the Mobi include a 200-unit insulin cartridge and an on-pump button that can be used instead of the phone for bolusing insulin. The device can be clipped to clothing or worn on-body with an adhesive sleeve that is sold separately.
The Mobi is compatible with all existing Tandem-branded infusion sets manufactured by the Convatec Group, and there is a new 5-inch tubing option made just for the Tandem Mobi.
The Mobi is part of a hybrid-closed loop automated delivery system, along with the current Control-IQ technology and a compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The CGM sensor predicts glucose values 30 minutes ahead and adjusts insulin delivery every 5 minutes to prevent highs and lows. Users must still manually bolus for meals. The system can deliver automatic correction boluses for up to 1 hour to prevent hyperglycemia.
Limited release of the Tandem Mobi is expected in late 2023, followed by full commercial availability in early 2024.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The product is half the size of the company’s t:slim X2 and is now the smallest of the commercially available durable tubed pumps. It is fully controllable from a mobile app through a user’s compatible iPhone.
Features of the Mobi include a 200-unit insulin cartridge and an on-pump button that can be used instead of the phone for bolusing insulin. The device can be clipped to clothing or worn on-body with an adhesive sleeve that is sold separately.
The Mobi is compatible with all existing Tandem-branded infusion sets manufactured by the Convatec Group, and there is a new 5-inch tubing option made just for the Tandem Mobi.
The Mobi is part of a hybrid-closed loop automated delivery system, along with the current Control-IQ technology and a compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The CGM sensor predicts glucose values 30 minutes ahead and adjusts insulin delivery every 5 minutes to prevent highs and lows. Users must still manually bolus for meals. The system can deliver automatic correction boluses for up to 1 hour to prevent hyperglycemia.
Limited release of the Tandem Mobi is expected in late 2023, followed by full commercial availability in early 2024.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Aging and type 1 diabetes: ‘Complete picture’ 40 years on
SAN DIEGO –
New funding for 2022-2027 for the DCCT long-term observational follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) will go toward investigating aspects of type 1 diabetes that are associated with aging and are also common in type 2 diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea.
The original randomized DCCT clinical trial results, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that early intensive glycemic control was the key to preventing or slowing the progression of long-term eye, kidney, and nerve complications of type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, EDIC has yielded many more major findings including that early tight glycemic control also reduces cardiovascular risk and prolongs survival in type 1 diabetes.
And although the phenomenon of metabolic memory initially seen in EDIC means that early glycemic control is important, subsequent EDIC data also have suggested that it is never too late to initiate intensive glycemic control, speakers emphasized during a special symposium commemorating 40 years since the start of DCCT, held during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. As with the 30-year DCCT/EDIC commemorative symposium held in 2013, local study participants were in the audience and were acknowledged with long applause.
Together, DCCT and EDIC – both funded by the National Institutes of Health at 27 sites in the United States and Canada – have changed the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and continue to inform clinical practice. Prior to the DCCT, between 1930 and 1970, about a third of people with type 1 diabetes developed vision loss and one in five experienced kidney failure and/or myocardial infarction. Stroke and amputation were also common, DCCT/EDIC chair David M. Nathan, MD, said while introducing the symposium.
“All of the advances in care of type 1 diabetes have developed because this study demonstrated that it was important – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), new insulins, better [insulin] pumps. ... I think the most profound finding is that mortality in our intensively treated cohort is the same as in the general population. That says it all,” Dr. Nathan said in an interview.
And now, “what we still have yet to contribute is what happens to type 1 diabetes as people get older,” added Dr. Nathan, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
‘Something that heretofore none of us could have imagined’
The 1,441 DCCT participants had a mean age of 27 years at baseline in 1983, when they were randomized to intensive insulin therapy or usual care. The 1,375 participants (96%) who continued into EDIC in 1994 were an average of 35 years old at that point, when the usual care group was taught intensive glycemic management and all participants returned to their personal health care teams. The 1,075 participants in EDIC today are an average age of 63 years.
Only 11 participants had died at the start of EDIC, and just 250 (17%) have died as of 2023, said study coordinator cochair Gayle Lorenzi, RN, who is a certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of California, San Diego.
“DCCT/EDIC because of its longevity represents a unique opportunity to explore aging in long duration of type 1 diabetes, something that heretofore none of us could have imagined, especially for those of you in the audience who started your careers in the 70s and 80s,” Ms. Lorenzi commented.
About 36% of the cohort now has overweight and 40% have obesity, mirroring the general population. And they now have a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.3%.
According to Barbara H. Braffett, PhD, co–principal investigator at the DCCT/EDIC data coordinating center: “The EDIC study is now shifting its focus during the next 5 years to understand the clinical course of type 1 diabetes in the setting of advancing duration and age, as well as increasing adiposity, which has progressively affected individuals with type 1 diabetes and has potential long-term adverse consequences.”
Dr. Braffett outlined the new study approaches added in 2022-2027. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two-dimensional Doppler echocardiography, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity will be used to quantify functional and structural changes central to heart failure.
Dr. Nathan commented that, although enough cardiovascular events were available in EDIC by 2006 to demonstrate a significant 58% reduction in the intensive therapy group, “now we can start looking at the aging heart. We have a bunch of great cardiologists working with us who will be guiding us on measuring everything.”
Fatty liver disease in the setting of increasing adiposity will also be investigated using transient elastography (FibroScan) and the Fibrosis-4 index, a quantification of liver enzymes and platelet count.
Dr. Nathan noted that the study participants have had “this kind of funny metabolic milieu in their liver for decades. They don’t make insulin in their pancreas, and therefore, the insulin they get is peripheral and then it goes to their liver. Well, what does that do to them?”
Participants will also complete three symptom questionnaires assessing obstructive sleep apnea, aimed at guiding future sleep studies in those found to be at high risk, Dr. Braffett said.
DCCT/EDIC over 40 years: ‘Incredibly complete picture’
As of 2023, the DCCT/EDIC participants have been studied for longer than 60% of their lifespans and for over 80% of their diabetes duration, Dr. Braffett noted.
During the EDIC 2017-2022 cycle, Dr. Braffett and other speakers summarized, prior EDIC efforts had focused on aspects of cognitive function, physical function, and cheiroarthropathy.
Other DCCT/EDIC studies examined the relationship of A1c and diabetes duration in cardiovascular disease risk, the association of microvascular complications with the risk of cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors, and the risk of severe hypoglycemia over the first 30 years of DCCT/EDIC follow-up.
Moreover, the longitudinal eye and kidney assessments over the 40 years have informed screening guidelines for retinopathy and urinary albumin.
Dr. Nathan said: “Today, the number with horrible complications is very few, but we haven’t erased complications entirely. ... We have this incredibly complete picture of type 1 diabetes that allows us to explore everything. We welcome people to come to us with ideas. That’s the value of this research.”
Dr. Nathan, Ms. Lorenzi, and Dr. Braffett reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO –
New funding for 2022-2027 for the DCCT long-term observational follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) will go toward investigating aspects of type 1 diabetes that are associated with aging and are also common in type 2 diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea.
The original randomized DCCT clinical trial results, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that early intensive glycemic control was the key to preventing or slowing the progression of long-term eye, kidney, and nerve complications of type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, EDIC has yielded many more major findings including that early tight glycemic control also reduces cardiovascular risk and prolongs survival in type 1 diabetes.
And although the phenomenon of metabolic memory initially seen in EDIC means that early glycemic control is important, subsequent EDIC data also have suggested that it is never too late to initiate intensive glycemic control, speakers emphasized during a special symposium commemorating 40 years since the start of DCCT, held during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. As with the 30-year DCCT/EDIC commemorative symposium held in 2013, local study participants were in the audience and were acknowledged with long applause.
Together, DCCT and EDIC – both funded by the National Institutes of Health at 27 sites in the United States and Canada – have changed the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and continue to inform clinical practice. Prior to the DCCT, between 1930 and 1970, about a third of people with type 1 diabetes developed vision loss and one in five experienced kidney failure and/or myocardial infarction. Stroke and amputation were also common, DCCT/EDIC chair David M. Nathan, MD, said while introducing the symposium.
“All of the advances in care of type 1 diabetes have developed because this study demonstrated that it was important – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), new insulins, better [insulin] pumps. ... I think the most profound finding is that mortality in our intensively treated cohort is the same as in the general population. That says it all,” Dr. Nathan said in an interview.
And now, “what we still have yet to contribute is what happens to type 1 diabetes as people get older,” added Dr. Nathan, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
‘Something that heretofore none of us could have imagined’
The 1,441 DCCT participants had a mean age of 27 years at baseline in 1983, when they were randomized to intensive insulin therapy or usual care. The 1,375 participants (96%) who continued into EDIC in 1994 were an average of 35 years old at that point, when the usual care group was taught intensive glycemic management and all participants returned to their personal health care teams. The 1,075 participants in EDIC today are an average age of 63 years.
Only 11 participants had died at the start of EDIC, and just 250 (17%) have died as of 2023, said study coordinator cochair Gayle Lorenzi, RN, who is a certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of California, San Diego.
“DCCT/EDIC because of its longevity represents a unique opportunity to explore aging in long duration of type 1 diabetes, something that heretofore none of us could have imagined, especially for those of you in the audience who started your careers in the 70s and 80s,” Ms. Lorenzi commented.
About 36% of the cohort now has overweight and 40% have obesity, mirroring the general population. And they now have a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.3%.
According to Barbara H. Braffett, PhD, co–principal investigator at the DCCT/EDIC data coordinating center: “The EDIC study is now shifting its focus during the next 5 years to understand the clinical course of type 1 diabetes in the setting of advancing duration and age, as well as increasing adiposity, which has progressively affected individuals with type 1 diabetes and has potential long-term adverse consequences.”
Dr. Braffett outlined the new study approaches added in 2022-2027. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two-dimensional Doppler echocardiography, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity will be used to quantify functional and structural changes central to heart failure.
Dr. Nathan commented that, although enough cardiovascular events were available in EDIC by 2006 to demonstrate a significant 58% reduction in the intensive therapy group, “now we can start looking at the aging heart. We have a bunch of great cardiologists working with us who will be guiding us on measuring everything.”
Fatty liver disease in the setting of increasing adiposity will also be investigated using transient elastography (FibroScan) and the Fibrosis-4 index, a quantification of liver enzymes and platelet count.
Dr. Nathan noted that the study participants have had “this kind of funny metabolic milieu in their liver for decades. They don’t make insulin in their pancreas, and therefore, the insulin they get is peripheral and then it goes to their liver. Well, what does that do to them?”
Participants will also complete three symptom questionnaires assessing obstructive sleep apnea, aimed at guiding future sleep studies in those found to be at high risk, Dr. Braffett said.
DCCT/EDIC over 40 years: ‘Incredibly complete picture’
As of 2023, the DCCT/EDIC participants have been studied for longer than 60% of their lifespans and for over 80% of their diabetes duration, Dr. Braffett noted.
During the EDIC 2017-2022 cycle, Dr. Braffett and other speakers summarized, prior EDIC efforts had focused on aspects of cognitive function, physical function, and cheiroarthropathy.
Other DCCT/EDIC studies examined the relationship of A1c and diabetes duration in cardiovascular disease risk, the association of microvascular complications with the risk of cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors, and the risk of severe hypoglycemia over the first 30 years of DCCT/EDIC follow-up.
Moreover, the longitudinal eye and kidney assessments over the 40 years have informed screening guidelines for retinopathy and urinary albumin.
Dr. Nathan said: “Today, the number with horrible complications is very few, but we haven’t erased complications entirely. ... We have this incredibly complete picture of type 1 diabetes that allows us to explore everything. We welcome people to come to us with ideas. That’s the value of this research.”
Dr. Nathan, Ms. Lorenzi, and Dr. Braffett reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO –
New funding for 2022-2027 for the DCCT long-term observational follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) will go toward investigating aspects of type 1 diabetes that are associated with aging and are also common in type 2 diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea.
The original randomized DCCT clinical trial results, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that early intensive glycemic control was the key to preventing or slowing the progression of long-term eye, kidney, and nerve complications of type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, EDIC has yielded many more major findings including that early tight glycemic control also reduces cardiovascular risk and prolongs survival in type 1 diabetes.
And although the phenomenon of metabolic memory initially seen in EDIC means that early glycemic control is important, subsequent EDIC data also have suggested that it is never too late to initiate intensive glycemic control, speakers emphasized during a special symposium commemorating 40 years since the start of DCCT, held during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. As with the 30-year DCCT/EDIC commemorative symposium held in 2013, local study participants were in the audience and were acknowledged with long applause.
Together, DCCT and EDIC – both funded by the National Institutes of Health at 27 sites in the United States and Canada – have changed the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and continue to inform clinical practice. Prior to the DCCT, between 1930 and 1970, about a third of people with type 1 diabetes developed vision loss and one in five experienced kidney failure and/or myocardial infarction. Stroke and amputation were also common, DCCT/EDIC chair David M. Nathan, MD, said while introducing the symposium.
“All of the advances in care of type 1 diabetes have developed because this study demonstrated that it was important – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), new insulins, better [insulin] pumps. ... I think the most profound finding is that mortality in our intensively treated cohort is the same as in the general population. That says it all,” Dr. Nathan said in an interview.
And now, “what we still have yet to contribute is what happens to type 1 diabetes as people get older,” added Dr. Nathan, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
‘Something that heretofore none of us could have imagined’
The 1,441 DCCT participants had a mean age of 27 years at baseline in 1983, when they were randomized to intensive insulin therapy or usual care. The 1,375 participants (96%) who continued into EDIC in 1994 were an average of 35 years old at that point, when the usual care group was taught intensive glycemic management and all participants returned to their personal health care teams. The 1,075 participants in EDIC today are an average age of 63 years.
Only 11 participants had died at the start of EDIC, and just 250 (17%) have died as of 2023, said study coordinator cochair Gayle Lorenzi, RN, who is a certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of California, San Diego.
“DCCT/EDIC because of its longevity represents a unique opportunity to explore aging in long duration of type 1 diabetes, something that heretofore none of us could have imagined, especially for those of you in the audience who started your careers in the 70s and 80s,” Ms. Lorenzi commented.
About 36% of the cohort now has overweight and 40% have obesity, mirroring the general population. And they now have a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.3%.
According to Barbara H. Braffett, PhD, co–principal investigator at the DCCT/EDIC data coordinating center: “The EDIC study is now shifting its focus during the next 5 years to understand the clinical course of type 1 diabetes in the setting of advancing duration and age, as well as increasing adiposity, which has progressively affected individuals with type 1 diabetes and has potential long-term adverse consequences.”
Dr. Braffett outlined the new study approaches added in 2022-2027. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two-dimensional Doppler echocardiography, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity will be used to quantify functional and structural changes central to heart failure.
Dr. Nathan commented that, although enough cardiovascular events were available in EDIC by 2006 to demonstrate a significant 58% reduction in the intensive therapy group, “now we can start looking at the aging heart. We have a bunch of great cardiologists working with us who will be guiding us on measuring everything.”
Fatty liver disease in the setting of increasing adiposity will also be investigated using transient elastography (FibroScan) and the Fibrosis-4 index, a quantification of liver enzymes and platelet count.
Dr. Nathan noted that the study participants have had “this kind of funny metabolic milieu in their liver for decades. They don’t make insulin in their pancreas, and therefore, the insulin they get is peripheral and then it goes to their liver. Well, what does that do to them?”
Participants will also complete three symptom questionnaires assessing obstructive sleep apnea, aimed at guiding future sleep studies in those found to be at high risk, Dr. Braffett said.
DCCT/EDIC over 40 years: ‘Incredibly complete picture’
As of 2023, the DCCT/EDIC participants have been studied for longer than 60% of their lifespans and for over 80% of their diabetes duration, Dr. Braffett noted.
During the EDIC 2017-2022 cycle, Dr. Braffett and other speakers summarized, prior EDIC efforts had focused on aspects of cognitive function, physical function, and cheiroarthropathy.
Other DCCT/EDIC studies examined the relationship of A1c and diabetes duration in cardiovascular disease risk, the association of microvascular complications with the risk of cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors, and the risk of severe hypoglycemia over the first 30 years of DCCT/EDIC follow-up.
Moreover, the longitudinal eye and kidney assessments over the 40 years have informed screening guidelines for retinopathy and urinary albumin.
Dr. Nathan said: “Today, the number with horrible complications is very few, but we haven’t erased complications entirely. ... We have this incredibly complete picture of type 1 diabetes that allows us to explore everything. We welcome people to come to us with ideas. That’s the value of this research.”
Dr. Nathan, Ms. Lorenzi, and Dr. Braffett reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
COORDINATE-Diabetes: A ‘wake-up call’ for many specialties
SAN DIEGO – at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).
COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.
“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.
“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.
Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”
The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
‘They’ve shown we can do better’
Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”
Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”
Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
Why should you care about a cardiology study?
In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.
The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.
Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.
She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.
For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’
In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”
Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”
The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.
Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.
“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.
While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.
“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’
Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.
Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.
Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.
He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.
“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”
After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.
“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”
Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).
COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.
“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.
“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.
Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”
The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
‘They’ve shown we can do better’
Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”
Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”
Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
Why should you care about a cardiology study?
In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.
The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.
Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.
She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.
For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’
In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”
Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”
The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.
Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.
“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.
While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.
“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’
Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.
Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.
Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.
He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.
“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”
After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.
“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”
Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).
COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.
“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.
“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.
Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”
The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
‘They’ve shown we can do better’
Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”
Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”
Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
Why should you care about a cardiology study?
In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.
The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.
Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.
She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.
For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’
In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”
Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”
The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.
Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.
“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.
While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.
“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’
Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.
Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.
Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.
He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.
“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”
After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.
“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”
Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
Thirty-three percent of type 1 diabetes patients insulin free with stem cells
SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.
Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.
“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.
Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.
Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”
Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path
The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.
The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.
Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.
Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.
Safety: No major concerns thus far
Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.
Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”
However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”
Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”
In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.”
Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.
Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.
“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.
Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.
Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”
Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path
The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.
The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.
Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.
Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.
Safety: No major concerns thus far
Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.
Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”
However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”
Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”
In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.”
Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.
Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.
“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.
Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.
Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”
Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path
The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.
The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.
Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.
Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.
Safety: No major concerns thus far
Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.
Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”
However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”
Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”
In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.”
Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
FDA OKs pancreatic islet cell therapy for type 1 diabetes
The Food and Drug Administration has approved donislecel (Lantidra, CellTrans), a pancreatic islet cell therapy developed from cadaver donors, for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes who are unable to achieve target glucose levels owing to severe hypoglycemic episodes.
The product is given as a single infusion via the hepatic portal vein into the liver. A second infusion is given if necessary. Immunosuppression is required to maintain cell viability, just as it is required to support a transplanted kidney or other organ, as these all represent “foreign” tissues to the recipient.
“Today’s approval, the first-ever cell therapy to treat patients with type 1 diabetes, provides individuals living with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe hypoglycemia an additional treatment option to help achieve target blood glucose levels,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in an FDA statement.
The product was approved despite concerns from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and an organization of more than 50 transplant surgeons – the Islets for U.S. Collaborative – whose members argue that cadaver-derived (allogeneic) pancreatic islets should be regulated as transplanted organs rather than as biologic drugs, as is done in many other parts of the world.
Lantidra differs from stem cell therapy being developed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In the latter, beta cells are grown from allogeneic stem cells using a proprietary technology. So far, six patients have received the therapy, and it has been successful in all of them to varying degrees, as reported at last week’s American Diabetes Association meeting. So while this is a promising technology, with talk of a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, it’s important to remember that this is very early in the development phase, says Anne Peters, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Approval based on small studies, with adverse events
The approval of Lantidra, following a 12-4 vote in favor by the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee in April 2021, was based on two nonrandomized, single-arm studies that included a total of 30 individuals with type 1 diabetes who had hypoglycemic unawareness and who received between one and three infusions of donislecel.
Insulin independence was achieved at 1 year by 21 participants; 11 were still insulin independent at 5 years, and 10 remained so more than 5 years. Five participants were unable to discontinue insulin treatment at all.
Adverse events included nausea, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Most of the participants experienced at least one serious adverse reaction related to the method of infusion and/or the use of immunosuppression. Some of these reactions required discontinuation of the immunosuppressive medications, resulting in the loss of islet cell function and return to insulin dependence.
“These adverse events should be considered when assessing the benefits and risks of Lantidra for each patient. Lantidra is approved with patient-directed labeling to inform patients with type 1 diabetes about benefits and risks of Lantidra,” according to the FDA statement.
U.S. transplant physicians had expressed concern, bill introduced
The transplant surgery organizations had written letters to the FDA, as well as to several other government agencies, to ask that the regulatory framework for Lantidra be shifted from the FDA to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the United Network for Organ Sharing.
They also wrote to members of Congress. On June 22, 2023, U.S. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Budd (R-NC), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced the Islet Transplantation Bill, which would shift the regulatory framework for cadaveric islets from that of biologic drugs to transplanted organs.
Asked for comment, Piotr Witkowski, MD, PhD, the leader of the Islets for U.S. Collaborative, told this news organization: “We were really happy about the introduction of the islet bill. Now, we’re concerned about negative downstream effects of granting a licence to a private company for distribution of the cadaveric islets.”
During the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee’s discussion in 2021, several panel members noted that the target patient population for this treatment with the current indication will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, in 2004 and 2007, given current automated diabetes technology – such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid closed-loop systems in which the two are linked together as a so-called artificial pancreas – that reduces hypoglycemia risk.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved donislecel (Lantidra, CellTrans), a pancreatic islet cell therapy developed from cadaver donors, for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes who are unable to achieve target glucose levels owing to severe hypoglycemic episodes.
The product is given as a single infusion via the hepatic portal vein into the liver. A second infusion is given if necessary. Immunosuppression is required to maintain cell viability, just as it is required to support a transplanted kidney or other organ, as these all represent “foreign” tissues to the recipient.
“Today’s approval, the first-ever cell therapy to treat patients with type 1 diabetes, provides individuals living with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe hypoglycemia an additional treatment option to help achieve target blood glucose levels,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in an FDA statement.
The product was approved despite concerns from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and an organization of more than 50 transplant surgeons – the Islets for U.S. Collaborative – whose members argue that cadaver-derived (allogeneic) pancreatic islets should be regulated as transplanted organs rather than as biologic drugs, as is done in many other parts of the world.
Lantidra differs from stem cell therapy being developed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In the latter, beta cells are grown from allogeneic stem cells using a proprietary technology. So far, six patients have received the therapy, and it has been successful in all of them to varying degrees, as reported at last week’s American Diabetes Association meeting. So while this is a promising technology, with talk of a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, it’s important to remember that this is very early in the development phase, says Anne Peters, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Approval based on small studies, with adverse events
The approval of Lantidra, following a 12-4 vote in favor by the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee in April 2021, was based on two nonrandomized, single-arm studies that included a total of 30 individuals with type 1 diabetes who had hypoglycemic unawareness and who received between one and three infusions of donislecel.
Insulin independence was achieved at 1 year by 21 participants; 11 were still insulin independent at 5 years, and 10 remained so more than 5 years. Five participants were unable to discontinue insulin treatment at all.
Adverse events included nausea, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Most of the participants experienced at least one serious adverse reaction related to the method of infusion and/or the use of immunosuppression. Some of these reactions required discontinuation of the immunosuppressive medications, resulting in the loss of islet cell function and return to insulin dependence.
“These adverse events should be considered when assessing the benefits and risks of Lantidra for each patient. Lantidra is approved with patient-directed labeling to inform patients with type 1 diabetes about benefits and risks of Lantidra,” according to the FDA statement.
U.S. transplant physicians had expressed concern, bill introduced
The transplant surgery organizations had written letters to the FDA, as well as to several other government agencies, to ask that the regulatory framework for Lantidra be shifted from the FDA to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the United Network for Organ Sharing.
They also wrote to members of Congress. On June 22, 2023, U.S. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Budd (R-NC), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced the Islet Transplantation Bill, which would shift the regulatory framework for cadaveric islets from that of biologic drugs to transplanted organs.
Asked for comment, Piotr Witkowski, MD, PhD, the leader of the Islets for U.S. Collaborative, told this news organization: “We were really happy about the introduction of the islet bill. Now, we’re concerned about negative downstream effects of granting a licence to a private company for distribution of the cadaveric islets.”
During the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee’s discussion in 2021, several panel members noted that the target patient population for this treatment with the current indication will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, in 2004 and 2007, given current automated diabetes technology – such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid closed-loop systems in which the two are linked together as a so-called artificial pancreas – that reduces hypoglycemia risk.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved donislecel (Lantidra, CellTrans), a pancreatic islet cell therapy developed from cadaver donors, for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes who are unable to achieve target glucose levels owing to severe hypoglycemic episodes.
The product is given as a single infusion via the hepatic portal vein into the liver. A second infusion is given if necessary. Immunosuppression is required to maintain cell viability, just as it is required to support a transplanted kidney or other organ, as these all represent “foreign” tissues to the recipient.
“Today’s approval, the first-ever cell therapy to treat patients with type 1 diabetes, provides individuals living with type 1 diabetes and recurrent severe hypoglycemia an additional treatment option to help achieve target blood glucose levels,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in an FDA statement.
The product was approved despite concerns from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and an organization of more than 50 transplant surgeons – the Islets for U.S. Collaborative – whose members argue that cadaver-derived (allogeneic) pancreatic islets should be regulated as transplanted organs rather than as biologic drugs, as is done in many other parts of the world.
Lantidra differs from stem cell therapy being developed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. In the latter, beta cells are grown from allogeneic stem cells using a proprietary technology. So far, six patients have received the therapy, and it has been successful in all of them to varying degrees, as reported at last week’s American Diabetes Association meeting. So while this is a promising technology, with talk of a “cure” for type 1 diabetes, it’s important to remember that this is very early in the development phase, says Anne Peters, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Approval based on small studies, with adverse events
The approval of Lantidra, following a 12-4 vote in favor by the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee in April 2021, was based on two nonrandomized, single-arm studies that included a total of 30 individuals with type 1 diabetes who had hypoglycemic unawareness and who received between one and three infusions of donislecel.
Insulin independence was achieved at 1 year by 21 participants; 11 were still insulin independent at 5 years, and 10 remained so more than 5 years. Five participants were unable to discontinue insulin treatment at all.
Adverse events included nausea, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. Most of the participants experienced at least one serious adverse reaction related to the method of infusion and/or the use of immunosuppression. Some of these reactions required discontinuation of the immunosuppressive medications, resulting in the loss of islet cell function and return to insulin dependence.
“These adverse events should be considered when assessing the benefits and risks of Lantidra for each patient. Lantidra is approved with patient-directed labeling to inform patients with type 1 diabetes about benefits and risks of Lantidra,” according to the FDA statement.
U.S. transplant physicians had expressed concern, bill introduced
The transplant surgery organizations had written letters to the FDA, as well as to several other government agencies, to ask that the regulatory framework for Lantidra be shifted from the FDA to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the United Network for Organ Sharing.
They also wrote to members of Congress. On June 22, 2023, U.S. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Budd (R-NC), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced the Islet Transplantation Bill, which would shift the regulatory framework for cadaveric islets from that of biologic drugs to transplanted organs.
Asked for comment, Piotr Witkowski, MD, PhD, the leader of the Islets for U.S. Collaborative, told this news organization: “We were really happy about the introduction of the islet bill. Now, we’re concerned about negative downstream effects of granting a licence to a private company for distribution of the cadaveric islets.”
During the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee’s discussion in 2021, several panel members noted that the target patient population for this treatment with the current indication will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, in 2004 and 2007, given current automated diabetes technology – such as insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid closed-loop systems in which the two are linked together as a so-called artificial pancreas – that reduces hypoglycemia risk.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Once-weekly basal insulin nears market for type 2 diabetes
SAN DIEGO – results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.
Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.
“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.
Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”
Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”
However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”
The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.
Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.
Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?
One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.
Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.
In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.
“Insulin is insulin. When we use insulin there will always be hypoglycemia. But we only have less than one event per year,” added Dr. Rosenstock, of Velocity Clinical Research at Medical City, Dallas.
Dr. Alexander pointed out that in ONWARDS 3 just under half of both groups were taking a sulfonylurea, although the trial design allowed for cutting the dose in half when the basal insulin was added.
In ONWARDS 1, in contrast, sulfonylureas and glinides were stopped at the time of randomization. “That’s not definitive, but I would argue that’s the explanation, to be proven by formal testing.”
Indeed, an audience member asked about that during the discussion, and Dr. Lingvay said they were still analyzing those data. “We’re working on that. It’s very important.”
Dr. Alexander noted, “I think the message here is don’t continue sulfonylureas or glinides in someone you’re giving insulin to because you’re going to get hypoglycemia.”
Better glycemic control, with fewer injections
ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.
The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.
The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.
Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.
A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).
ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).
There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.
Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).
The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.
Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.
Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.
“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.
Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”
Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”
However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”
The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.
Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.
Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?
One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.
Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.
In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.
“Insulin is insulin. When we use insulin there will always be hypoglycemia. But we only have less than one event per year,” added Dr. Rosenstock, of Velocity Clinical Research at Medical City, Dallas.
Dr. Alexander pointed out that in ONWARDS 3 just under half of both groups were taking a sulfonylurea, although the trial design allowed for cutting the dose in half when the basal insulin was added.
In ONWARDS 1, in contrast, sulfonylureas and glinides were stopped at the time of randomization. “That’s not definitive, but I would argue that’s the explanation, to be proven by formal testing.”
Indeed, an audience member asked about that during the discussion, and Dr. Lingvay said they were still analyzing those data. “We’re working on that. It’s very important.”
Dr. Alexander noted, “I think the message here is don’t continue sulfonylureas or glinides in someone you’re giving insulin to because you’re going to get hypoglycemia.”
Better glycemic control, with fewer injections
ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.
The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.
The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.
Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.
A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).
ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).
There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.
Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).
The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.
Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.
Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.
“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.
Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”
Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”
However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”
The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.
Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.
Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?
One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.
Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.
In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.
“Insulin is insulin. When we use insulin there will always be hypoglycemia. But we only have less than one event per year,” added Dr. Rosenstock, of Velocity Clinical Research at Medical City, Dallas.
Dr. Alexander pointed out that in ONWARDS 3 just under half of both groups were taking a sulfonylurea, although the trial design allowed for cutting the dose in half when the basal insulin was added.
In ONWARDS 1, in contrast, sulfonylureas and glinides were stopped at the time of randomization. “That’s not definitive, but I would argue that’s the explanation, to be proven by formal testing.”
Indeed, an audience member asked about that during the discussion, and Dr. Lingvay said they were still analyzing those data. “We’re working on that. It’s very important.”
Dr. Alexander noted, “I think the message here is don’t continue sulfonylureas or glinides in someone you’re giving insulin to because you’re going to get hypoglycemia.”
Better glycemic control, with fewer injections
ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.
The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.
The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.
Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.
A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).
ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).
There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.
Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).
The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.
Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
ADA: Screen all with type 2 diabetes for fatty liver disease
SAN DIEGO – and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.
Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).
“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.
The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”
Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”
The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR
The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.
The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.
Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”
The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.
“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”
Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”
The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone
Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.
In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.
And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”
However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”
The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.
Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.
“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”
Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.
Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).
“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.
The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”
Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”
The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR
The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.
The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.
Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”
The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.
“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”
Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”
The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone
Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.
In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.
And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”
However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”
The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.
Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.
“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”
Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.
Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).
“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.
The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”
Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”
The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR
The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.
The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.
Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”
The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.
“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”
Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”
The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone
Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.
In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.
And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”
However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”
The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.
Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.
“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”
Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
Surgery, radioactive iodine for hyperthyroidism up survival
CHICAGO – new data from a large cohort study suggest.
“I think this is something we need to take into our discussions with patients because treatment for hyperthyroidism is very much individualized decision-making ... The effects on mortality are not usually one of the factors we discuss there. But now, we have strong data from a very large cohort of patients indicating that this is something that does need to be discussed,” lead author Kristien Boelaert, MD, who is the current president of the British Thyroid Association, said in an interview.
Dr. Boelaert presented the findings of the EGRET (Weight Changes, Cardio-Metabolic Risks and Mortality in Patients With Hyperthyroidism) study at the Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Other notable findings from EGRET were that the patients on antithyroid medication were thinner than expected, suggesting undertreatment, and that no differences were found for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) across the treatment options, leaving unexplained the reasons for the increased mortality in the medicated group.
Asked to comment, session moderator Spyridoula Maraka, MD, said: “I think this is very important work because so far when we counsel our patients about the different treatment modalities we focus more on risk for recurrence and other short-term outcomes.”
“But these data give us a bigger perspective on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes ... We haven’t had such good quality data to accurately counsel our patients,” added Dr. Maraka, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Mortality higher for medication-treated, but why?
“Hyperthyroidism or an overactive thyroid gland is common, affecting up to 3% of the population, and is associated with long-term adverse cardiac and metabolic consequences. The optimal treatment choice remains unclear,” explained Dr. Boelaert, professor of endocrinology at the University of Birmingham, England, outlining the reasons they conducted the EGRET study.
The study population was 55,318 patients (77% women) with newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism identified from a U.K. population-based primary care electronic health record database. Of those, 77.8% were treated with antithyroid medication, 14.6% with radioactive iodine, and 7.8% with surgery (total or hemithyroidectomy). The health records were linked with national mortality data and Health Survey England data on body mass index (BMI) for comparison.
Dr. Boelaert noted that the trial design “is the best we have” because a randomized clinical trial comparing hyperthyroid treatments would be extremely difficult given the need to individualize therapy and the impossibility of blinding. On the other hand, with the current study, “it’s certainly the largest patient group we’ve looked at.”
Over an average 12.1 years of follow-up, the proportion of patients who died was 14.1% in the medication group, 18.7% of those who had radioiodine therapy, and 9.2% of those who underwent surgery.
Compared with the number who would have been expected to die based on the general background population, the likelihood of reduced life expectancy for the treated groups was increased 2.10-fold for radioiodine, 2.13-fold for surgery, and 2.71-fold for medication. All were significantly higher than the general population (P < .0001).
After further adjustment for multiple confounders, mortality risk was reduced in patients treated with radioiodine (by 13%) or surgery (by 20%), compared with those treated with antithyroid medication, both significant reductions (P < .0001).
After exclusion of the 3.9% with baseline cardiovascular disease, MACE (defined as cardiovascular death or hospitalization for stroke or myocardial infarction) occurred in 9.9%, 13.4%, and 8.0% of the medication, radioiodine, and surgery groups, respectively.
After adjustments, there were no differences in MACE, compared with medications, with hazard ratios of 1.00 (P = .94) for radioactive iodine and 0.97 for surgery (P = .61).
“We were expecting to see a reduction in cardiovascular events, as previous studies suggest that radioactive iodine patients have fewer cardiovascular deaths. We did not see that but our protocol wasn’t set up to get every single specific cause of death. That will require further ongoing analysis,” said Dr. Boelaert.
Weight gain: Worth it for longer life
Compared with the background population, thyroidectomy was associated with an increased likelihood of developing obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) in both men (odds ratio, 1.56; P < .001), and women (OR, 1.27; P < .001), while radioiodine increased obesity risk in women (OR, 1.12; P < .001) but not in men (OR, 1.03; P = .55).
Among the women, those treated with antithyroid medications had an average 0.28 kg/m2 lower BMI, compared with the background population, and those treated with surgery had a 0.83 kg/m2 higher BMI. Both differences were significant (P < .001).
The BMI differences were not significant for radioactive iodine in women and for medications and radioactive iodine in men, although the men treated surgically also had a significantly higher BMI (1.09 kg/m2; P < .001).
“The patients on antithyroid drugs were lighter than we would expect. I think that’s ongoing hyperthyroidism. I strongly believe that ... to get rid of hyperthyroidism you have to make patients hypothyroid ... It’s really important that you get good control,” Dr. Boelaert commented.
Dr. Maraka, who is also endocrine section chief of the Arkansas Veteran’s Healthcare System, Little Rock, commented: “[Dr. Boelaert’s] concern is that the patients on antithyroid drugs are not adequately controlled, and we know very well that uncontrolled hyperthyroidism is associated with increased mortality and increased cardiovascular outcomes. This suggests that if patients are on antithyroid medications, they should at least be monitored very well.”
Regarding the possible cause of the increased mortality, if not cardiovascular, Dr. Maraka also pointed out that typically once antithyroid medications are stopped, about half of patients will stay in remission and the other half will return to hyperthyroidism.
“It might be that this kind of ‘yo-yo’ is what’s actually leading to the increased mortality, compared to patients who had definitive treatment and this problem was taken care of. This is speculation but it might be what we’re seeing,” Dr. Maraka observed.
The BMI differences worked out to a weight gain with surgery of approximately 2.1 kg (4.6 lb) for a woman with a height of 160 cm and 2.4 kg for 170 cm. Among men, those differences were 3.2 kg and 3.5 kg for heights of 170 cm and 190 cm, respectively.
Dr. Boelaert said, “I think we should discuss this with patients. They will say they don’t want to get fat, but the absolute weight gain is ... not that much.”
“I personally think that 2 kg is not a big price to pay to live longer. I hope that’s what we’ll be telling our patients in clinic in the next few years after we get this published.”
Dr. Boelaert and Dr. Maraka have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – new data from a large cohort study suggest.
“I think this is something we need to take into our discussions with patients because treatment for hyperthyroidism is very much individualized decision-making ... The effects on mortality are not usually one of the factors we discuss there. But now, we have strong data from a very large cohort of patients indicating that this is something that does need to be discussed,” lead author Kristien Boelaert, MD, who is the current president of the British Thyroid Association, said in an interview.
Dr. Boelaert presented the findings of the EGRET (Weight Changes, Cardio-Metabolic Risks and Mortality in Patients With Hyperthyroidism) study at the Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Other notable findings from EGRET were that the patients on antithyroid medication were thinner than expected, suggesting undertreatment, and that no differences were found for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) across the treatment options, leaving unexplained the reasons for the increased mortality in the medicated group.
Asked to comment, session moderator Spyridoula Maraka, MD, said: “I think this is very important work because so far when we counsel our patients about the different treatment modalities we focus more on risk for recurrence and other short-term outcomes.”
“But these data give us a bigger perspective on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes ... We haven’t had such good quality data to accurately counsel our patients,” added Dr. Maraka, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Mortality higher for medication-treated, but why?
“Hyperthyroidism or an overactive thyroid gland is common, affecting up to 3% of the population, and is associated with long-term adverse cardiac and metabolic consequences. The optimal treatment choice remains unclear,” explained Dr. Boelaert, professor of endocrinology at the University of Birmingham, England, outlining the reasons they conducted the EGRET study.
The study population was 55,318 patients (77% women) with newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism identified from a U.K. population-based primary care electronic health record database. Of those, 77.8% were treated with antithyroid medication, 14.6% with radioactive iodine, and 7.8% with surgery (total or hemithyroidectomy). The health records were linked with national mortality data and Health Survey England data on body mass index (BMI) for comparison.
Dr. Boelaert noted that the trial design “is the best we have” because a randomized clinical trial comparing hyperthyroid treatments would be extremely difficult given the need to individualize therapy and the impossibility of blinding. On the other hand, with the current study, “it’s certainly the largest patient group we’ve looked at.”
Over an average 12.1 years of follow-up, the proportion of patients who died was 14.1% in the medication group, 18.7% of those who had radioiodine therapy, and 9.2% of those who underwent surgery.
Compared with the number who would have been expected to die based on the general background population, the likelihood of reduced life expectancy for the treated groups was increased 2.10-fold for radioiodine, 2.13-fold for surgery, and 2.71-fold for medication. All were significantly higher than the general population (P < .0001).
After further adjustment for multiple confounders, mortality risk was reduced in patients treated with radioiodine (by 13%) or surgery (by 20%), compared with those treated with antithyroid medication, both significant reductions (P < .0001).
After exclusion of the 3.9% with baseline cardiovascular disease, MACE (defined as cardiovascular death or hospitalization for stroke or myocardial infarction) occurred in 9.9%, 13.4%, and 8.0% of the medication, radioiodine, and surgery groups, respectively.
After adjustments, there were no differences in MACE, compared with medications, with hazard ratios of 1.00 (P = .94) for radioactive iodine and 0.97 for surgery (P = .61).
“We were expecting to see a reduction in cardiovascular events, as previous studies suggest that radioactive iodine patients have fewer cardiovascular deaths. We did not see that but our protocol wasn’t set up to get every single specific cause of death. That will require further ongoing analysis,” said Dr. Boelaert.
Weight gain: Worth it for longer life
Compared with the background population, thyroidectomy was associated with an increased likelihood of developing obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) in both men (odds ratio, 1.56; P < .001), and women (OR, 1.27; P < .001), while radioiodine increased obesity risk in women (OR, 1.12; P < .001) but not in men (OR, 1.03; P = .55).
Among the women, those treated with antithyroid medications had an average 0.28 kg/m2 lower BMI, compared with the background population, and those treated with surgery had a 0.83 kg/m2 higher BMI. Both differences were significant (P < .001).
The BMI differences were not significant for radioactive iodine in women and for medications and radioactive iodine in men, although the men treated surgically also had a significantly higher BMI (1.09 kg/m2; P < .001).
“The patients on antithyroid drugs were lighter than we would expect. I think that’s ongoing hyperthyroidism. I strongly believe that ... to get rid of hyperthyroidism you have to make patients hypothyroid ... It’s really important that you get good control,” Dr. Boelaert commented.
Dr. Maraka, who is also endocrine section chief of the Arkansas Veteran’s Healthcare System, Little Rock, commented: “[Dr. Boelaert’s] concern is that the patients on antithyroid drugs are not adequately controlled, and we know very well that uncontrolled hyperthyroidism is associated with increased mortality and increased cardiovascular outcomes. This suggests that if patients are on antithyroid medications, they should at least be monitored very well.”
Regarding the possible cause of the increased mortality, if not cardiovascular, Dr. Maraka also pointed out that typically once antithyroid medications are stopped, about half of patients will stay in remission and the other half will return to hyperthyroidism.
“It might be that this kind of ‘yo-yo’ is what’s actually leading to the increased mortality, compared to patients who had definitive treatment and this problem was taken care of. This is speculation but it might be what we’re seeing,” Dr. Maraka observed.
The BMI differences worked out to a weight gain with surgery of approximately 2.1 kg (4.6 lb) for a woman with a height of 160 cm and 2.4 kg for 170 cm. Among men, those differences were 3.2 kg and 3.5 kg for heights of 170 cm and 190 cm, respectively.
Dr. Boelaert said, “I think we should discuss this with patients. They will say they don’t want to get fat, but the absolute weight gain is ... not that much.”
“I personally think that 2 kg is not a big price to pay to live longer. I hope that’s what we’ll be telling our patients in clinic in the next few years after we get this published.”
Dr. Boelaert and Dr. Maraka have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – new data from a large cohort study suggest.
“I think this is something we need to take into our discussions with patients because treatment for hyperthyroidism is very much individualized decision-making ... The effects on mortality are not usually one of the factors we discuss there. But now, we have strong data from a very large cohort of patients indicating that this is something that does need to be discussed,” lead author Kristien Boelaert, MD, who is the current president of the British Thyroid Association, said in an interview.
Dr. Boelaert presented the findings of the EGRET (Weight Changes, Cardio-Metabolic Risks and Mortality in Patients With Hyperthyroidism) study at the Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Other notable findings from EGRET were that the patients on antithyroid medication were thinner than expected, suggesting undertreatment, and that no differences were found for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) across the treatment options, leaving unexplained the reasons for the increased mortality in the medicated group.
Asked to comment, session moderator Spyridoula Maraka, MD, said: “I think this is very important work because so far when we counsel our patients about the different treatment modalities we focus more on risk for recurrence and other short-term outcomes.”
“But these data give us a bigger perspective on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes ... We haven’t had such good quality data to accurately counsel our patients,” added Dr. Maraka, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Mortality higher for medication-treated, but why?
“Hyperthyroidism or an overactive thyroid gland is common, affecting up to 3% of the population, and is associated with long-term adverse cardiac and metabolic consequences. The optimal treatment choice remains unclear,” explained Dr. Boelaert, professor of endocrinology at the University of Birmingham, England, outlining the reasons they conducted the EGRET study.
The study population was 55,318 patients (77% women) with newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism identified from a U.K. population-based primary care electronic health record database. Of those, 77.8% were treated with antithyroid medication, 14.6% with radioactive iodine, and 7.8% with surgery (total or hemithyroidectomy). The health records were linked with national mortality data and Health Survey England data on body mass index (BMI) for comparison.
Dr. Boelaert noted that the trial design “is the best we have” because a randomized clinical trial comparing hyperthyroid treatments would be extremely difficult given the need to individualize therapy and the impossibility of blinding. On the other hand, with the current study, “it’s certainly the largest patient group we’ve looked at.”
Over an average 12.1 years of follow-up, the proportion of patients who died was 14.1% in the medication group, 18.7% of those who had radioiodine therapy, and 9.2% of those who underwent surgery.
Compared with the number who would have been expected to die based on the general background population, the likelihood of reduced life expectancy for the treated groups was increased 2.10-fold for radioiodine, 2.13-fold for surgery, and 2.71-fold for medication. All were significantly higher than the general population (P < .0001).
After further adjustment for multiple confounders, mortality risk was reduced in patients treated with radioiodine (by 13%) or surgery (by 20%), compared with those treated with antithyroid medication, both significant reductions (P < .0001).
After exclusion of the 3.9% with baseline cardiovascular disease, MACE (defined as cardiovascular death or hospitalization for stroke or myocardial infarction) occurred in 9.9%, 13.4%, and 8.0% of the medication, radioiodine, and surgery groups, respectively.
After adjustments, there were no differences in MACE, compared with medications, with hazard ratios of 1.00 (P = .94) for radioactive iodine and 0.97 for surgery (P = .61).
“We were expecting to see a reduction in cardiovascular events, as previous studies suggest that radioactive iodine patients have fewer cardiovascular deaths. We did not see that but our protocol wasn’t set up to get every single specific cause of death. That will require further ongoing analysis,” said Dr. Boelaert.
Weight gain: Worth it for longer life
Compared with the background population, thyroidectomy was associated with an increased likelihood of developing obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) in both men (odds ratio, 1.56; P < .001), and women (OR, 1.27; P < .001), while radioiodine increased obesity risk in women (OR, 1.12; P < .001) but not in men (OR, 1.03; P = .55).
Among the women, those treated with antithyroid medications had an average 0.28 kg/m2 lower BMI, compared with the background population, and those treated with surgery had a 0.83 kg/m2 higher BMI. Both differences were significant (P < .001).
The BMI differences were not significant for radioactive iodine in women and for medications and radioactive iodine in men, although the men treated surgically also had a significantly higher BMI (1.09 kg/m2; P < .001).
“The patients on antithyroid drugs were lighter than we would expect. I think that’s ongoing hyperthyroidism. I strongly believe that ... to get rid of hyperthyroidism you have to make patients hypothyroid ... It’s really important that you get good control,” Dr. Boelaert commented.
Dr. Maraka, who is also endocrine section chief of the Arkansas Veteran’s Healthcare System, Little Rock, commented: “[Dr. Boelaert’s] concern is that the patients on antithyroid drugs are not adequately controlled, and we know very well that uncontrolled hyperthyroidism is associated with increased mortality and increased cardiovascular outcomes. This suggests that if patients are on antithyroid medications, they should at least be monitored very well.”
Regarding the possible cause of the increased mortality, if not cardiovascular, Dr. Maraka also pointed out that typically once antithyroid medications are stopped, about half of patients will stay in remission and the other half will return to hyperthyroidism.
“It might be that this kind of ‘yo-yo’ is what’s actually leading to the increased mortality, compared to patients who had definitive treatment and this problem was taken care of. This is speculation but it might be what we’re seeing,” Dr. Maraka observed.
The BMI differences worked out to a weight gain with surgery of approximately 2.1 kg (4.6 lb) for a woman with a height of 160 cm and 2.4 kg for 170 cm. Among men, those differences were 3.2 kg and 3.5 kg for heights of 170 cm and 190 cm, respectively.
Dr. Boelaert said, “I think we should discuss this with patients. They will say they don’t want to get fat, but the absolute weight gain is ... not that much.”
“I personally think that 2 kg is not a big price to pay to live longer. I hope that’s what we’ll be telling our patients in clinic in the next few years after we get this published.”
Dr. Boelaert and Dr. Maraka have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ENDO 2023
Scripts surge for desiccated thyroid extract to treat hypothyroidism
new research has found.
Nationwide MarketScan claims data reveal that, among first-time thyroid hormone prescriptions, those for DTE rose from 5.4% in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. At the same time, prescriptions for first-line levothyroxine dropped from 91.8% to 87.2%. Prescriptions for liothyronine (LT3), primarily in combination with levothyroxine, remained at about 2% throughout the decade.
The nonlevothyroxine therapies were more commonly prescribed in the West and Southwestern United States, while levothyroxine monotherapy was more frequent in the Northwest and upper Midwest, and also in states with higher densities of primary care physicians and endocrinologists.
The magnitude of this shift in first-line treatment was unexpected.
“We were frankly quite surprised to see that difference in just 10 years,” lead author Matthew Ettleson, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, session moderator Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, said she also found the dramatic shift to DTE surprising.
“It’s unclear why since there hasn’t been a shift in the science or in the guidelines over the last decade. ... I think we need to understand better what is driving this, who the patients are who are seeking it out, and which providers are the primary drivers of these prescriptions,” she said.
Dr. Ettleson presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Why the increase in desiccated thyroid extract?
Current guidelines by the American Thyroid Association recommend levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine (T4) monotherapy, as the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. However, approximately 10%-20% of levothyroxine-treated patients report bothersome symptoms despite normalization of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.
In 2021, the ATA, along with European and British thyroid societies, issued a consensus statement noting that new trials of triiodothyronine (T3)/T4 combination therapy were “justified.”
However, the MarketScan data were gathered before that statement came out, which doesn’t mention desiccated thyroid extract, “so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher,” Ettleson said.
He said one possibility may be the existence of online materials saying negative things about levothyroxine, so that “people who are just learning about hypothyroidism might already be primed to think about alternative treatments.” Moreover, some patients may view DTE as more “natural” than levothyroxine.
Dr. Ettleson also noted that the distinct geographic variation “didn’t seem random. ... So not only was there a doubling overall but there’s a variation in practice patterns across the country. I don’t have an explanation for that, but I think it’s important to recognize in the medical community that there are these big differences.”
Endocrinologists not as keen to prescribe DTE or T3
Residence in a state with higher endocrinologist density (3.0/100,000 population) was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving T3 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 0.18; P < .001).
Residence in large central metro zones was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving T3 (aOR, 1.32; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 1.05; P < .008, respectively).
Dr. Pearce observed: “I don’t see DTE in Boston. It’s mostly in the South and Southwest.”
She said she doubted that endocrinologists were the primary prescribers of DTE, as many endocrinologists are “wary” of the pig thyroid–derived product because its T4 to T3 ratio is about 4:1, in contrast to the ratio in humans of 13-14:1.
Thus, DTE contains a much higher proportion of the active hormone T3. It is also much shorter acting, with a half-life of a few hours, compared to a few days for T4, she explained.
“We don’t really know what long-term safety effects are but it’s probably a less physiologic way of dosing thyroid hormone than ... either levothyroxine or levothyroxine in combination with a lower T3 proportion,” she said.
Just trying to understand
Dr. Ettleson emphasized that the goal of his research wasn’t to reverse the trend but to better understand it.
Nonetheless, he also noted, “now that we know there are more patients taking DTE, we need to start looking at rates of atrial fibrillation, fracture, heart failure, and other possible outcomes in this population and compare them with levothyroxine and nonthyroid populations to make sure that it is as safe as levothyroxine.”
“There are no data to suggest increased risk, especially if TSH is monitored and stays in the normal range, but there’s very little data for over 5 or 10 years on DTE-treated patients. We need the data,” he emphasized.
Meanwhile, he’s working on a survey of endocrinologists and non-endocrinologists to ask if they’ve prescribed DTE, and if so, why, and whether it’s because patients asked for it. “There’s a lot more work to be done, but I think it’s exciting. It’s important to see how patients are being treated in the real world ... and understand why it’s happening and what the outcomes are.”
Dr. Ettleson and Dr. Pearce have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research has found.
Nationwide MarketScan claims data reveal that, among first-time thyroid hormone prescriptions, those for DTE rose from 5.4% in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. At the same time, prescriptions for first-line levothyroxine dropped from 91.8% to 87.2%. Prescriptions for liothyronine (LT3), primarily in combination with levothyroxine, remained at about 2% throughout the decade.
The nonlevothyroxine therapies were more commonly prescribed in the West and Southwestern United States, while levothyroxine monotherapy was more frequent in the Northwest and upper Midwest, and also in states with higher densities of primary care physicians and endocrinologists.
The magnitude of this shift in first-line treatment was unexpected.
“We were frankly quite surprised to see that difference in just 10 years,” lead author Matthew Ettleson, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, session moderator Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, said she also found the dramatic shift to DTE surprising.
“It’s unclear why since there hasn’t been a shift in the science or in the guidelines over the last decade. ... I think we need to understand better what is driving this, who the patients are who are seeking it out, and which providers are the primary drivers of these prescriptions,” she said.
Dr. Ettleson presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Why the increase in desiccated thyroid extract?
Current guidelines by the American Thyroid Association recommend levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine (T4) monotherapy, as the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. However, approximately 10%-20% of levothyroxine-treated patients report bothersome symptoms despite normalization of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.
In 2021, the ATA, along with European and British thyroid societies, issued a consensus statement noting that new trials of triiodothyronine (T3)/T4 combination therapy were “justified.”
However, the MarketScan data were gathered before that statement came out, which doesn’t mention desiccated thyroid extract, “so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher,” Ettleson said.
He said one possibility may be the existence of online materials saying negative things about levothyroxine, so that “people who are just learning about hypothyroidism might already be primed to think about alternative treatments.” Moreover, some patients may view DTE as more “natural” than levothyroxine.
Dr. Ettleson also noted that the distinct geographic variation “didn’t seem random. ... So not only was there a doubling overall but there’s a variation in practice patterns across the country. I don’t have an explanation for that, but I think it’s important to recognize in the medical community that there are these big differences.”
Endocrinologists not as keen to prescribe DTE or T3
Residence in a state with higher endocrinologist density (3.0/100,000 population) was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving T3 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 0.18; P < .001).
Residence in large central metro zones was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving T3 (aOR, 1.32; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 1.05; P < .008, respectively).
Dr. Pearce observed: “I don’t see DTE in Boston. It’s mostly in the South and Southwest.”
She said she doubted that endocrinologists were the primary prescribers of DTE, as many endocrinologists are “wary” of the pig thyroid–derived product because its T4 to T3 ratio is about 4:1, in contrast to the ratio in humans of 13-14:1.
Thus, DTE contains a much higher proportion of the active hormone T3. It is also much shorter acting, with a half-life of a few hours, compared to a few days for T4, she explained.
“We don’t really know what long-term safety effects are but it’s probably a less physiologic way of dosing thyroid hormone than ... either levothyroxine or levothyroxine in combination with a lower T3 proportion,” she said.
Just trying to understand
Dr. Ettleson emphasized that the goal of his research wasn’t to reverse the trend but to better understand it.
Nonetheless, he also noted, “now that we know there are more patients taking DTE, we need to start looking at rates of atrial fibrillation, fracture, heart failure, and other possible outcomes in this population and compare them with levothyroxine and nonthyroid populations to make sure that it is as safe as levothyroxine.”
“There are no data to suggest increased risk, especially if TSH is monitored and stays in the normal range, but there’s very little data for over 5 or 10 years on DTE-treated patients. We need the data,” he emphasized.
Meanwhile, he’s working on a survey of endocrinologists and non-endocrinologists to ask if they’ve prescribed DTE, and if so, why, and whether it’s because patients asked for it. “There’s a lot more work to be done, but I think it’s exciting. It’s important to see how patients are being treated in the real world ... and understand why it’s happening and what the outcomes are.”
Dr. Ettleson and Dr. Pearce have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research has found.
Nationwide MarketScan claims data reveal that, among first-time thyroid hormone prescriptions, those for DTE rose from 5.4% in 2010 to 10.2% in 2020. At the same time, prescriptions for first-line levothyroxine dropped from 91.8% to 87.2%. Prescriptions for liothyronine (LT3), primarily in combination with levothyroxine, remained at about 2% throughout the decade.
The nonlevothyroxine therapies were more commonly prescribed in the West and Southwestern United States, while levothyroxine monotherapy was more frequent in the Northwest and upper Midwest, and also in states with higher densities of primary care physicians and endocrinologists.
The magnitude of this shift in first-line treatment was unexpected.
“We were frankly quite surprised to see that difference in just 10 years,” lead author Matthew Ettleson, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, session moderator Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, said she also found the dramatic shift to DTE surprising.
“It’s unclear why since there hasn’t been a shift in the science or in the guidelines over the last decade. ... I think we need to understand better what is driving this, who the patients are who are seeking it out, and which providers are the primary drivers of these prescriptions,” she said.
Dr. Ettleson presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The results were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
Why the increase in desiccated thyroid extract?
Current guidelines by the American Thyroid Association recommend levothyroxine, a synthetic form of thyroxine (T4) monotherapy, as the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. However, approximately 10%-20% of levothyroxine-treated patients report bothersome symptoms despite normalization of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels.
In 2021, the ATA, along with European and British thyroid societies, issued a consensus statement noting that new trials of triiodothyronine (T3)/T4 combination therapy were “justified.”
However, the MarketScan data were gathered before that statement came out, which doesn’t mention desiccated thyroid extract, “so that’s a bit of a head-scratcher,” Ettleson said.
He said one possibility may be the existence of online materials saying negative things about levothyroxine, so that “people who are just learning about hypothyroidism might already be primed to think about alternative treatments.” Moreover, some patients may view DTE as more “natural” than levothyroxine.
Dr. Ettleson also noted that the distinct geographic variation “didn’t seem random. ... So not only was there a doubling overall but there’s a variation in practice patterns across the country. I don’t have an explanation for that, but I think it’s important to recognize in the medical community that there are these big differences.”
Endocrinologists not as keen to prescribe DTE or T3
Residence in a state with higher endocrinologist density (3.0/100,000 population) was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving T3 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 0.18; P < .001).
Residence in large central metro zones was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving T3 (aOR, 1.32; P < .001) or DTE therapy (aOR, 1.05; P < .008, respectively).
Dr. Pearce observed: “I don’t see DTE in Boston. It’s mostly in the South and Southwest.”
She said she doubted that endocrinologists were the primary prescribers of DTE, as many endocrinologists are “wary” of the pig thyroid–derived product because its T4 to T3 ratio is about 4:1, in contrast to the ratio in humans of 13-14:1.
Thus, DTE contains a much higher proportion of the active hormone T3. It is also much shorter acting, with a half-life of a few hours, compared to a few days for T4, she explained.
“We don’t really know what long-term safety effects are but it’s probably a less physiologic way of dosing thyroid hormone than ... either levothyroxine or levothyroxine in combination with a lower T3 proportion,” she said.
Just trying to understand
Dr. Ettleson emphasized that the goal of his research wasn’t to reverse the trend but to better understand it.
Nonetheless, he also noted, “now that we know there are more patients taking DTE, we need to start looking at rates of atrial fibrillation, fracture, heart failure, and other possible outcomes in this population and compare them with levothyroxine and nonthyroid populations to make sure that it is as safe as levothyroxine.”
“There are no data to suggest increased risk, especially if TSH is monitored and stays in the normal range, but there’s very little data for over 5 or 10 years on DTE-treated patients. We need the data,” he emphasized.
Meanwhile, he’s working on a survey of endocrinologists and non-endocrinologists to ask if they’ve prescribed DTE, and if so, why, and whether it’s because patients asked for it. “There’s a lot more work to be done, but I think it’s exciting. It’s important to see how patients are being treated in the real world ... and understand why it’s happening and what the outcomes are.”
Dr. Ettleson and Dr. Pearce have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2023