Miriam E. Tucker

BOSTON — The prevalence of Cushing syndrome (CS) in the United States may be considerably higher than currently appreciated, new data from a single US institution suggest. 

In contrast to estimates of 1 to 3 cases per million patient-years from population-based European studies, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, estimated that the incidence of CS in Wisconsin is a minimum of 7.2 cases per million patient-years. What’s more, contrary to all previous studies, they found that adrenal Cushing syndrome was more common than pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)–secreting tumors (Cushing disease), and that fewer than half of individuals with adrenal Cushing syndrome had classic physical features of hypercortisolism, such as weight gain, round face, excessive hair growth, and stretch marks.

“Cases are absolutely being missed. ... Clinicians should realize that cortisol excess is not rare. It may not be common, but it needs to be considered in patients with any constellation of features that are seen in cortisol excess,” study investigator Ty B. Carroll, MD, associate professor of medicine, endocrinology and molecular medicine, and the endocrine fellowship program director at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told this news organization. 

There are several contributing factors, he noted, “including the obesity and diabetes epidemics which make some clinical features of cortisol excess more common and less notable. Providers get used to seeing patients with some features of cortisol excess and don’t think to screen. The consequence of this is more difficult-to-control diabetes and hypertension, more advance metabolic bone disease, and likely more advanced cardiovascular disease, all resulting from extended exposure to cortisol excess,” he said.

 

Are Milder Cases the Ones Being Missed?

Asked to comment, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, said, “When we talk about Cushing [syndrome], we usually think of pituitary ACTH as more [common], followed by adrenal adenomas, and then ectopic. But they’re seeing more adrenal adenoma ... we are probably diagnosing this a little more now.”

She also suggested that the Wisconsin group may have a lower threshold for diagnosing the milder cortisol elevation seen with adrenal Cushing syndrome. “If you screen for Cushing with a dexamethasone suppression test … [i]f you have autonomous secretion by the adrenal, you don’t suppress as much. ... When you measure 24-hour urinary cortisol, it may be normal. So you’re in this in-between [state]. ... Maybe in Wisconsin they’re diagnosing it more. Or, maybe it’s just being underdiagnosed in other places.” 

She also pointed out that “you can’t diagnose it unless you think of it. I’m not so sure that with these mild cases it’s so much that it’s more common, but maybe it’s like thyroid nodules, where we didn’t know about it until everybody started getting all of these CT scans. We’re now seeing all these incidental thyroid nodules ... I don’t think we’re missing florid Cushing.” 

However, Dr. Wardlaw said, it’s probably worthwhile to detect even milder hypercortisolism because it could still have long-term damaging effects, including osteoporosis, muscle weakness, glucose intolerance, and frailty. “You could do something about it and normalize it if you found it. I think that would be the reason to do it.”
 

Is Wisconsin Representative of Cushing Everywhere?

Dr. Carroll presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. He began by noting that most of the previous CS incidence studies, with estimates of 1.2-3.2 cases per million per year, come from European data published from 1994 to 2019 and collected as far back as 1955. The method of acquisition of patients and the definitions of confirmed cases varied widely in those studies, which reported CS etiologies of ACTH-secreting neoplasms (pituitary or ectopic) in 75%-85% and adrenal-dependent cortisol excess in 15%-20%. 

The current study included data from clinic records between May 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, of Wisconsin residents newly diagnosed with and treated for CS. The CS diagnosis was established with standard guideline-supported biochemical testing and appropriate imaging. Patients with exogenous and non-neoplastic hypercortisolism and those who did not receive therapy for CS were excluded. 

A total of 185 patients (73% female, 27% male) were identified from 27 of the total 72 counties in Wisconsin, representing a population of 4.5 million. On the basis of the total 5.9 million population of Wisconsin, the incidence of CS in the state works out to 7.2 cases per million population per year, Dr. Carroll said. 

However, data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association show that the University of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee facility treated just about half of patients in the state who are discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of CS during 2019-2023. “So ... that means that an actual or approximate incidence of 14-15 cases per million per year rather than the 7.2 cases that we produce,” he said. 

Etiologies were 60% adrenal (111 patients), 36.8% pituitary (68 patients), and 3.2% ectopic (6 patients). Those proportions were similar between genders. 

On biochemical testing, values for late-night salivary cortisol, dexamethasone suppression, and urinary free cortisol were highest for the ectopic group (3.189 µg/dL, 42.5 µg/dL, and 1514.2 µg/24 h, respectively) and lowest for the adrenal group (0.236 µg/dL, 6.5 µg/dL, and 64.2 µg/24 h, respectively). All differences between groups were highly statistically significant, at P < .0001, Dr. Carroll noted. 

Classic physical features of CS were present in 91% of people with pituitary CS and 100% of those ectopic CS but just 44% of individuals with adrenal CS. “We found that adrenal-dependent disease was the most common form of Cushing syndrome. It frequently presented without classic physical features that may be due to the milder biochemical presentation,” he concluded. 

Dr. Carroll reported consulting and investigator fees from Corcept Therapeutics. Dr. Wardlaw has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The prevalence of Cushing syndrome (CS) in the United States may be considerably higher than currently appreciated, new data from a single US institution suggest. 

In contrast to estimates of 1 to 3 cases per million patient-years from population-based European studies, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, estimated that the incidence of CS in Wisconsin is a minimum of 7.2 cases per million patient-years. What’s more, contrary to all previous studies, they found that adrenal Cushing syndrome was more common than pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)–secreting tumors (Cushing disease), and that fewer than half of individuals with adrenal Cushing syndrome had classic physical features of hypercortisolism, such as weight gain, round face, excessive hair growth, and stretch marks.

“Cases are absolutely being missed. ... Clinicians should realize that cortisol excess is not rare. It may not be common, but it needs to be considered in patients with any constellation of features that are seen in cortisol excess,” study investigator Ty B. Carroll, MD, associate professor of medicine, endocrinology and molecular medicine, and the endocrine fellowship program director at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told this news organization. 

There are several contributing factors, he noted, “including the obesity and diabetes epidemics which make some clinical features of cortisol excess more common and less notable. Providers get used to seeing patients with some features of cortisol excess and don’t think to screen. The consequence of this is more difficult-to-control diabetes and hypertension, more advance metabolic bone disease, and likely more advanced cardiovascular disease, all resulting from extended exposure to cortisol excess,” he said.

 

Are Milder Cases the Ones Being Missed?

Asked to comment, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, said, “When we talk about Cushing [syndrome], we usually think of pituitary ACTH as more [common], followed by adrenal adenomas, and then ectopic. But they’re seeing more adrenal adenoma ... we are probably diagnosing this a little more now.”

She also suggested that the Wisconsin group may have a lower threshold for diagnosing the milder cortisol elevation seen with adrenal Cushing syndrome. “If you screen for Cushing with a dexamethasone suppression test … [i]f you have autonomous secretion by the adrenal, you don’t suppress as much. ... When you measure 24-hour urinary cortisol, it may be normal. So you’re in this in-between [state]. ... Maybe in Wisconsin they’re diagnosing it more. Or, maybe it’s just being underdiagnosed in other places.” 

She also pointed out that “you can’t diagnose it unless you think of it. I’m not so sure that with these mild cases it’s so much that it’s more common, but maybe it’s like thyroid nodules, where we didn’t know about it until everybody started getting all of these CT scans. We’re now seeing all these incidental thyroid nodules ... I don’t think we’re missing florid Cushing.” 

However, Dr. Wardlaw said, it’s probably worthwhile to detect even milder hypercortisolism because it could still have long-term damaging effects, including osteoporosis, muscle weakness, glucose intolerance, and frailty. “You could do something about it and normalize it if you found it. I think that would be the reason to do it.”
 

Is Wisconsin Representative of Cushing Everywhere?

Dr. Carroll presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. He began by noting that most of the previous CS incidence studies, with estimates of 1.2-3.2 cases per million per year, come from European data published from 1994 to 2019 and collected as far back as 1955. The method of acquisition of patients and the definitions of confirmed cases varied widely in those studies, which reported CS etiologies of ACTH-secreting neoplasms (pituitary or ectopic) in 75%-85% and adrenal-dependent cortisol excess in 15%-20%. 

The current study included data from clinic records between May 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, of Wisconsin residents newly diagnosed with and treated for CS. The CS diagnosis was established with standard guideline-supported biochemical testing and appropriate imaging. Patients with exogenous and non-neoplastic hypercortisolism and those who did not receive therapy for CS were excluded. 

A total of 185 patients (73% female, 27% male) were identified from 27 of the total 72 counties in Wisconsin, representing a population of 4.5 million. On the basis of the total 5.9 million population of Wisconsin, the incidence of CS in the state works out to 7.2 cases per million population per year, Dr. Carroll said. 

However, data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association show that the University of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee facility treated just about half of patients in the state who are discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of CS during 2019-2023. “So ... that means that an actual or approximate incidence of 14-15 cases per million per year rather than the 7.2 cases that we produce,” he said. 

Etiologies were 60% adrenal (111 patients), 36.8% pituitary (68 patients), and 3.2% ectopic (6 patients). Those proportions were similar between genders. 

On biochemical testing, values for late-night salivary cortisol, dexamethasone suppression, and urinary free cortisol were highest for the ectopic group (3.189 µg/dL, 42.5 µg/dL, and 1514.2 µg/24 h, respectively) and lowest for the adrenal group (0.236 µg/dL, 6.5 µg/dL, and 64.2 µg/24 h, respectively). All differences between groups were highly statistically significant, at P < .0001, Dr. Carroll noted. 

Classic physical features of CS were present in 91% of people with pituitary CS and 100% of those ectopic CS but just 44% of individuals with adrenal CS. “We found that adrenal-dependent disease was the most common form of Cushing syndrome. It frequently presented without classic physical features that may be due to the milder biochemical presentation,” he concluded. 

Dr. Carroll reported consulting and investigator fees from Corcept Therapeutics. Dr. Wardlaw has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The prevalence of Cushing syndrome (CS) in the United States may be considerably higher than currently appreciated, new data from a single US institution suggest. 

In contrast to estimates of 1 to 3 cases per million patient-years from population-based European studies, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, estimated that the incidence of CS in Wisconsin is a minimum of 7.2 cases per million patient-years. What’s more, contrary to all previous studies, they found that adrenal Cushing syndrome was more common than pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)–secreting tumors (Cushing disease), and that fewer than half of individuals with adrenal Cushing syndrome had classic physical features of hypercortisolism, such as weight gain, round face, excessive hair growth, and stretch marks.

“Cases are absolutely being missed. ... Clinicians should realize that cortisol excess is not rare. It may not be common, but it needs to be considered in patients with any constellation of features that are seen in cortisol excess,” study investigator Ty B. Carroll, MD, associate professor of medicine, endocrinology and molecular medicine, and the endocrine fellowship program director at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told this news organization. 

There are several contributing factors, he noted, “including the obesity and diabetes epidemics which make some clinical features of cortisol excess more common and less notable. Providers get used to seeing patients with some features of cortisol excess and don’t think to screen. The consequence of this is more difficult-to-control diabetes and hypertension, more advance metabolic bone disease, and likely more advanced cardiovascular disease, all resulting from extended exposure to cortisol excess,” he said.

 

Are Milder Cases the Ones Being Missed?

Asked to comment, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, said, “When we talk about Cushing [syndrome], we usually think of pituitary ACTH as more [common], followed by adrenal adenomas, and then ectopic. But they’re seeing more adrenal adenoma ... we are probably diagnosing this a little more now.”

She also suggested that the Wisconsin group may have a lower threshold for diagnosing the milder cortisol elevation seen with adrenal Cushing syndrome. “If you screen for Cushing with a dexamethasone suppression test … [i]f you have autonomous secretion by the adrenal, you don’t suppress as much. ... When you measure 24-hour urinary cortisol, it may be normal. So you’re in this in-between [state]. ... Maybe in Wisconsin they’re diagnosing it more. Or, maybe it’s just being underdiagnosed in other places.” 

She also pointed out that “you can’t diagnose it unless you think of it. I’m not so sure that with these mild cases it’s so much that it’s more common, but maybe it’s like thyroid nodules, where we didn’t know about it until everybody started getting all of these CT scans. We’re now seeing all these incidental thyroid nodules ... I don’t think we’re missing florid Cushing.” 

However, Dr. Wardlaw said, it’s probably worthwhile to detect even milder hypercortisolism because it could still have long-term damaging effects, including osteoporosis, muscle weakness, glucose intolerance, and frailty. “You could do something about it and normalize it if you found it. I think that would be the reason to do it.”
 

Is Wisconsin Representative of Cushing Everywhere?

Dr. Carroll presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. He began by noting that most of the previous CS incidence studies, with estimates of 1.2-3.2 cases per million per year, come from European data published from 1994 to 2019 and collected as far back as 1955. The method of acquisition of patients and the definitions of confirmed cases varied widely in those studies, which reported CS etiologies of ACTH-secreting neoplasms (pituitary or ectopic) in 75%-85% and adrenal-dependent cortisol excess in 15%-20%. 

The current study included data from clinic records between May 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, of Wisconsin residents newly diagnosed with and treated for CS. The CS diagnosis was established with standard guideline-supported biochemical testing and appropriate imaging. Patients with exogenous and non-neoplastic hypercortisolism and those who did not receive therapy for CS were excluded. 

A total of 185 patients (73% female, 27% male) were identified from 27 of the total 72 counties in Wisconsin, representing a population of 4.5 million. On the basis of the total 5.9 million population of Wisconsin, the incidence of CS in the state works out to 7.2 cases per million population per year, Dr. Carroll said. 

However, data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association show that the University of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee facility treated just about half of patients in the state who are discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of CS during 2019-2023. “So ... that means that an actual or approximate incidence of 14-15 cases per million per year rather than the 7.2 cases that we produce,” he said. 

Etiologies were 60% adrenal (111 patients), 36.8% pituitary (68 patients), and 3.2% ectopic (6 patients). Those proportions were similar between genders. 

On biochemical testing, values for late-night salivary cortisol, dexamethasone suppression, and urinary free cortisol were highest for the ectopic group (3.189 µg/dL, 42.5 µg/dL, and 1514.2 µg/24 h, respectively) and lowest for the adrenal group (0.236 µg/dL, 6.5 µg/dL, and 64.2 µg/24 h, respectively). All differences between groups were highly statistically significant, at P < .0001, Dr. Carroll noted. 

Classic physical features of CS were present in 91% of people with pituitary CS and 100% of those ectopic CS but just 44% of individuals with adrenal CS. “We found that adrenal-dependent disease was the most common form of Cushing syndrome. It frequently presented without classic physical features that may be due to the milder biochemical presentation,” he concluded. 

Dr. Carroll reported consulting and investigator fees from Corcept Therapeutics. Dr. Wardlaw has no disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — New Endocrine Society guidelines call for limiting vitamin D supplementation beyond the daily recommended intake to specific risk groups and advises against routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing in healthy individuals. 

The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include: 

• Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
• Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
• Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
• Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes

In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations. 

In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions. 

Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”

Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”

Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”

Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].” 

Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense. 

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”

However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”

In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”

Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”

Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.” 

In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing: 

The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.

Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

NEW ORLEANS — Medications in development would preserve muscle mass and augment fat loss when used in combination with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists taken for weight loss.

As drugs such as semaglutide (Wegovy) and the dual agonist glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide (Zepbound) are producing unprecedented degrees of weight loss in increasing numbers of people, concern has arisen about the proportion of the lost weight, approximately 30%-50%, that is beneficial lean body mass vs fat mass. While some loss of muscle mass is expected with any rapid overall weight loss, it’s not clear what long-term effect that may have on physical function, bone density, and longevity, particularly in older adults with sarcopenic obesity who are at risk for muscle atrophy and frailty.

Several drugs in various stages of development are aimed at preserving or building muscle mass and boosting fat loss when used in combination with one of these medications for weight loss. Trials now underway will need to show improved function — not just increased muscle — and also establish safety, experts told this news organization.

One such agent is Veru Inc.’s oral selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) enobosarm, currently in a phase 2b clinical trial for use with semaglutide in people who are at risk for muscle atrophy and weakness.

Also in a phase 2b trial for use with semaglutide is the antimyostatin intravenous agent bimagrumab. In July 2023, Eli Lilly purchased Versanis, the company that was developing that drug. Previous phase 2 data on bimagrumab alone vs placebo in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes showed improvement in muscle mass with greater fat loss but also produced a signal for pancreatitis requiring further evaluation.

Scholar Rock’s intravenous antimyostatin apitegromab is also now in a phase 2 trial and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals is expected to launch a phase 2 trial of its subcutaneous antimyostatin taldefgrobep alfa later this year.

Most of these and other similar agents have also been under investigation for use in one or more other muscle-losing conditions including spinal muscular atrophy, sarcopenia, and cancer.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a drug that built up muscle mass?”

Data presented in two late-breaking posters at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology meeting held May 9-11, 2024, laid the groundwork for the subsequent phase 2 studies of enobosarm in combination with a GLP-1 RA. One showed increases in total lean mass and decreases in total fat mass with 3 mg enobosarm for 14 days compared with placebo in both healthy young men and older men (≥ 60 years), with the greatest benefit seen in the older men who had lower lean mass and higher fat mass at baseline.

The other was a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 clinical trial of 3 mg/d oral enobosarm for the treatment of muscle wasting in advanced lung cancer. Here, a subset of participants who were aged ≥ 60 years and had obesity also showed reductions in fat mass and preservation of lean body mass with the drug compared with placebo, leading to “high-quality weight loss.”

Endocrinologist Adrian Dobs, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, Baltimore, an investigator on both of the Veru-sponsored studies, told Medscape Medical News, “The wishful thinking about these drugs has been around for quite a while, particularly in the cancer population or ... in a frail population. The hope was, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a drug that built up muscle mass? Certainly, we know that going into the gym does that but looking for some medication had been the goal. The thought was this class of medication would have a muscle-building effect, an anabolic effect without an androgenic effect causing masculinization.”

The problem with those studies in terms of regulatory approval, Dr. Dobs said, was defining the endpoints. “The [US Food and Drug Administration] is very interested in functional status. You can show that there is an increase in muscle mass. But to take that leap and show that a person can walk upstairs, carry groceries, and be more functionally able is hard to prove.”

And she noted that bringing frail elderly people into clinical trials isn’t easy. But now, “this is an interesting new avenue of scientific pursuit, looking at this particular population that is losing weight due to GLP-1 [agonists]. Now we’re dealing with high numbers of patients who are easy to identify because they’re taking those medications.”

“We have to also focus on ‘first, do no harm’”

Asked to comment, Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston, expressed caution. “We have to remember that it is not all about muscle mass. Maintaining muscle mass with weight loss is obviously important, but even today, with 30% of the weight loss coming from lean mass, which is not the same as muscle, there are huge benefits from fat loss, including cardiovascular and cancer risk reduction, increased life increased life expectancy, and diabetes remission.”

Moreover, Dr. Fitch pointed out, SARMs have been linked to increased cardiovascular events and blood clots.

“So, we have to also focus on ‘first, do no harm’. A lot of these muscle-promoting medications have been associated with increased risk of other things. So, it is going to take a lot of time and testing to be sure they are safe. While I am supportive of research to look into these risks vs benefits, we have to be mindful of the risks and recognize that in most cases of weight loss in people with obesity losing some lean mass is acceptable and the benefits of fat loss outweigh the risks of lean loss, especially if people are doing resistance exercise and maintaining strength.”

“Wherever the GLP-1s go, we go”

In an investor call held on May 8, 2024, Veru’s Chairman, CEO, and President Mitchell Steiner, MD, said that the current phase 2b study of enobosarm with semaglutide is only examining people aged ≥ 60 years to maximize the functional outcome benefit. But phase 3, he anticipates, will be “all comers, for sure. And then we’ll embed special populations.” The thinking, he said, is “Wherever the GLP-1s go, we go.”

Fitch has participated on advisory boards for Jenny Craig, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lily, Sidekick Health, and Vivus. Dobs had no disclosures beyond conducting research for Veru.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Medications in development would preserve muscle mass and augment fat loss when used in combination with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists taken for weight loss.

As drugs such as semaglutide (Wegovy) and the dual agonist glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide (Zepbound) are producing unprecedented degrees of weight loss in increasing numbers of people, concern has arisen about the proportion of the lost weight, approximately 30%-50%, that is beneficial lean body mass vs fat mass. While some loss of muscle mass is expected with any rapid overall weight loss, it’s not clear what long-term effect that may have on physical function, bone density, and longevity, particularly in older adults with sarcopenic obesity who are at risk for muscle atrophy and frailty.

Several drugs in various stages of development are aimed at preserving or building muscle mass and boosting fat loss when used in combination with one of these medications for weight loss. Trials now underway will need to show improved function — not just increased muscle — and also establish safety, experts told this news organization.

One such agent is Veru Inc.’s oral selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) enobosarm, currently in a phase 2b clinical trial for use with semaglutide in people who are at risk for muscle atrophy and weakness.

Also in a phase 2b trial for use with semaglutide is the antimyostatin intravenous agent bimagrumab. In July 2023, Eli Lilly purchased Versanis, the company that was developing that drug. Previous phase 2 data on bimagrumab alone vs placebo in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes showed improvement in muscle mass with greater fat loss but also produced a signal for pancreatitis requiring further evaluation.

Scholar Rock’s intravenous antimyostatin apitegromab is also now in a phase 2 trial and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals is expected to launch a phase 2 trial of its subcutaneous antimyostatin taldefgrobep alfa later this year.

Most of these and other similar agents have also been under investigation for use in one or more other muscle-losing conditions including spinal muscular atrophy, sarcopenia, and cancer.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a drug that built up muscle mass?”

Data presented in two late-breaking posters at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology meeting held May 9-11, 2024, laid the groundwork for the subsequent phase 2 studies of enobosarm in combination with a GLP-1 RA. One showed increases in total lean mass and decreases in total fat mass with 3 mg enobosarm for 14 days compared with placebo in both healthy young men and older men (≥ 60 years), with the greatest benefit seen in the older men who had lower lean mass and higher fat mass at baseline.

The other was a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 clinical trial of 3 mg/d oral enobosarm for the treatment of muscle wasting in advanced lung cancer. Here, a subset of participants who were aged ≥ 60 years and had obesity also showed reductions in fat mass and preservation of lean body mass with the drug compared with placebo, leading to “high-quality weight loss.”

Endocrinologist Adrian Dobs, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, Baltimore, an investigator on both of the Veru-sponsored studies, told Medscape Medical News, “The wishful thinking about these drugs has been around for quite a while, particularly in the cancer population or ... in a frail population. The hope was, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a drug that built up muscle mass? Certainly, we know that going into the gym does that but looking for some medication had been the goal. The thought was this class of medication would have a muscle-building effect, an anabolic effect without an androgenic effect causing masculinization.”

The problem with those studies in terms of regulatory approval, Dr. Dobs said, was defining the endpoints. “The [US Food and Drug Administration] is very interested in functional status. You can show that there is an increase in muscle mass. But to take that leap and show that a person can walk upstairs, carry groceries, and be more functionally able is hard to prove.”

And she noted that bringing frail elderly people into clinical trials isn’t easy. But now, “this is an interesting new avenue of scientific pursuit, looking at this particular population that is losing weight due to GLP-1 [agonists]. Now we’re dealing with high numbers of patients who are easy to identify because they’re taking those medications.”

“We have to also focus on ‘first, do no harm’”

Asked to comment, Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston, expressed caution. “We have to remember that it is not all about muscle mass. Maintaining muscle mass with weight loss is obviously important, but even today, with 30% of the weight loss coming from lean mass, which is not the same as muscle, there are huge benefits from fat loss, including cardiovascular and cancer risk reduction, increased life increased life expectancy, and diabetes remission.”

Moreover, Dr. Fitch pointed out, SARMs have been linked to increased cardiovascular events and blood clots.

“So, we have to also focus on ‘first, do no harm’. A lot of these muscle-promoting medications have been associated with increased risk of other things. So, it is going to take a lot of time and testing to be sure they are safe. While I am supportive of research to look into these risks vs benefits, we have to be mindful of the risks and recognize that in most cases of weight loss in people with obesity losing some lean mass is acceptable and the benefits of fat loss outweigh the risks of lean loss, especially if people are doing resistance exercise and maintaining strength.”

“Wherever the GLP-1s go, we go”

In an investor call held on May 8, 2024, Veru’s Chairman, CEO, and President Mitchell Steiner, MD, said that the current phase 2b study of enobosarm with semaglutide is only examining people aged ≥ 60 years to maximize the functional outcome benefit. But phase 3, he anticipates, will be “all comers, for sure. And then we’ll embed special populations.” The thinking, he said, is “Wherever the GLP-1s go, we go.”

Fitch has participated on advisory boards for Jenny Craig, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lily, Sidekick Health, and Vivus. Dobs had no disclosures beyond conducting research for Veru.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Medications in development would preserve muscle mass and augment fat loss when used in combination with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists taken for weight loss.

As drugs such as semaglutide (Wegovy) and the dual agonist glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 tirzepatide (Zepbound) are producing unprecedented degrees of weight loss in increasing numbers of people, concern has arisen about the proportion of the lost weight, approximately 30%-50%, that is beneficial lean body mass vs fat mass. While some loss of muscle mass is expected with any rapid overall weight loss, it’s not clear what long-term effect that may have on physical function, bone density, and longevity, particularly in older adults with sarcopenic obesity who are at risk for muscle atrophy and frailty.

Several drugs in various stages of development are aimed at preserving or building muscle mass and boosting fat loss when used in combination with one of these medications for weight loss. Trials now underway will need to show improved function — not just increased muscle — and also establish safety, experts told this news organization.

One such agent is Veru Inc.’s oral selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) enobosarm, currently in a phase 2b clinical trial for use with semaglutide in people who are at risk for muscle atrophy and weakness.

Also in a phase 2b trial for use with semaglutide is the antimyostatin intravenous agent bimagrumab. In July 2023, Eli Lilly purchased Versanis, the company that was developing that drug. Previous phase 2 data on bimagrumab alone vs placebo in people with obesity and type 2 diabetes showed improvement in muscle mass with greater fat loss but also produced a signal for pancreatitis requiring further evaluation.

Scholar Rock’s intravenous antimyostatin apitegromab is also now in a phase 2 trial and Biohaven Pharmaceuticals is expected to launch a phase 2 trial of its subcutaneous antimyostatin taldefgrobep alfa later this year.

Most of these and other similar agents have also been under investigation for use in one or more other muscle-losing conditions including spinal muscular atrophy, sarcopenia, and cancer.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a drug that built up muscle mass?”

Data presented in two late-breaking posters at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology meeting held May 9-11, 2024, laid the groundwork for the subsequent phase 2 studies of enobosarm in combination with a GLP-1 RA. One showed increases in total lean mass and decreases in total fat mass with 3 mg enobosarm for 14 days compared with placebo in both healthy young men and older men (≥ 60 years), with the greatest benefit seen in the older men who had lower lean mass and higher fat mass at baseline.

The other was a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 clinical trial of 3 mg/d oral enobosarm for the treatment of muscle wasting in advanced lung cancer. Here, a subset of participants who were aged ≥ 60 years and had obesity also showed reductions in fat mass and preservation of lean body mass with the drug compared with placebo, leading to “high-quality weight loss.”

Endocrinologist Adrian Dobs, MD, professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, Baltimore, an investigator on both of the Veru-sponsored studies, told Medscape Medical News, “The wishful thinking about these drugs has been around for quite a while, particularly in the cancer population or ... in a frail population. The hope was, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a drug that built up muscle mass? Certainly, we know that going into the gym does that but looking for some medication had been the goal. The thought was this class of medication would have a muscle-building effect, an anabolic effect without an androgenic effect causing masculinization.”

The problem with those studies in terms of regulatory approval, Dr. Dobs said, was defining the endpoints. “The [US Food and Drug Administration] is very interested in functional status. You can show that there is an increase in muscle mass. But to take that leap and show that a person can walk upstairs, carry groceries, and be more functionally able is hard to prove.”

And she noted that bringing frail elderly people into clinical trials isn’t easy. But now, “this is an interesting new avenue of scientific pursuit, looking at this particular population that is losing weight due to GLP-1 [agonists]. Now we’re dealing with high numbers of patients who are easy to identify because they’re taking those medications.”

“We have to also focus on ‘first, do no harm’”

Asked to comment, Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston, expressed caution. “We have to remember that it is not all about muscle mass. Maintaining muscle mass with weight loss is obviously important, but even today, with 30% of the weight loss coming from lean mass, which is not the same as muscle, there are huge benefits from fat loss, including cardiovascular and cancer risk reduction, increased life increased life expectancy, and diabetes remission.”

Moreover, Dr. Fitch pointed out, SARMs have been linked to increased cardiovascular events and blood clots.

“So, we have to also focus on ‘first, do no harm’. A lot of these muscle-promoting medications have been associated with increased risk of other things. So, it is going to take a lot of time and testing to be sure they are safe. While I am supportive of research to look into these risks vs benefits, we have to be mindful of the risks and recognize that in most cases of weight loss in people with obesity losing some lean mass is acceptable and the benefits of fat loss outweigh the risks of lean loss, especially if people are doing resistance exercise and maintaining strength.”

“Wherever the GLP-1s go, we go”

In an investor call held on May 8, 2024, Veru’s Chairman, CEO, and President Mitchell Steiner, MD, said that the current phase 2b study of enobosarm with semaglutide is only examining people aged ≥ 60 years to maximize the functional outcome benefit. But phase 3, he anticipates, will be “all comers, for sure. And then we’ll embed special populations.” The thinking, he said, is “Wherever the GLP-1s go, we go.”

Fitch has participated on advisory boards for Jenny Craig, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lily, Sidekick Health, and Vivus. Dobs had no disclosures beyond conducting research for Veru.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS — Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis may not be receiving all the recommended tests to rule out secondary causes of bone loss prior to treatment initiation, new research found.

In a single-center chart review of 150 postmenopausal women who had been diagnosed and treated for osteoporosis, most had received a complete blood cell count, basic metabolic panel, thyroid screening, and vitamin D testing. However, one in four had not been tested for a parathyroid hormone (PTH) level, and in nearly two thirds, a 24-hour urine calcium collection had not been ordered.

Overall, less than a third had received the complete workup for secondary osteoporosis causes as recommended by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the Endocrine Society.

“An appropriate evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis is essential because it impacts different treatment options and modalities. We discovered low rates of complete testing for secondary causes of osteoporosis in our patient population prior to treatment initiation,” said Kajol Manglani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, and colleagues, in a poster at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) annual meeting held on May 9-12, 2024.

First author Sheetal Bulchandani, MD, said in an interview, “It depends a lot on clinical judgment, but there are certain things that everybody with osteoporosis should be evaluated for. We looked for the things that all the guidelines recommend.”

Studies have suggested that up to 30% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have secondary causes, noted Dr. Bulchandani, who conducted the study as a postdoctoral fellow with colleagues at Georgetown University/MedStar Washington Hospital and is now in private endocrine practice in Petersburg, Virginia.

“It’s important not to assume that every woman who walks in with osteoporosis has postmenopausal osteoporosis. I think it would be appropriate to at least discuss with the patients what would warrant certain kinds of clinical workup. … If you don’t figure out if there is an underlying cause, you may end up using an unnecessary medication,” Dr. Bulchandani said.
 

Are You Missing Something Treatable?

For example, she said, if the patient has underlying hyperparathyroidism and is treated with osteoporosis medications, “you might not see the desired or expected outcome in their bone density.”

Asked to comment, Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, clinical associate professor at the Holman Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at New York University School of Medicine, New York City, told this news organization, “Certainly, if you have patients who have osteoporosis, it’s important to take a good history and consider secondary causes of bone loss because you may find a treatable etiology that actually can improve their bone density without even starting on a medication.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, who was an author of the 2020 AACE/American College of Endocrinology 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Osteoporosis, said a 24-hour urine calcium collection, not a spot calcium check, is “super important because you’re looking to see if there’s any evidence of hypercalciuria or malabsorption that may be associated with higher rates of bone loss. … These may be a little more cumbersome and harder to get patients to do and more logistics to arrange. But clearly, if you pick up hypercalciuria, that is a potentially treatable etiology and can improve bone density as well.”

Another example, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said, is “if they have a low serum calcium level and high PTH, that would be a real reason to look for celiac disease. By not getting that PTH level, you may be missing that potential diagnosis. There is a wide range of additional causes of osteoporosis ranging from common conditions such as hyperthyroidism to rare conditions such as Cushing disease.”
 

Differences in Ordering Found Across Specialties

The 150 postmenopausal women were all receiving treatment with either alendronate, denosumab, or zoledronic acid. Their average age was 64.7 years, and 63% were seeing an endocrinologist.

Complete workups as per AACE and Endocrine Society guidelines had been performed in just 28% of those who saw an endocrinologist and 12.5% of patients seen by a rheumatologist, in contrast to 84% of those who saw the head of the hospital’s fracture prevention program.

Overall, across all specialties, just 28.67% had the complete recommended workup for secondary osteoporosis causes.

The most missed test was a 24-hour urine calcium collection, ordered for just 38% of the patients, while PTH was ordered for 73% and phosphorus for 80%. The rest were more commonly ordered: Thyroid-stimulating hormone level for 92.7%, complete blood cell count for 91.3%, basic metabolic panel for 100%, and vitamin D level for 96%.

The high rate of vitamin D testing is noteworthy, Dr. Pessah-Pollack said. “The fact that 96% of women are having vitamin D levels checked as part of an osteoporosis evaluation means that everybody’s aware about vitamin D deficiency, and people want to know what their vitamin D levels are. … That’s good because we want to identify vitamin D deficiency in our osteoporosis patients.”

But the low rate of complete secondary screening even by endocrinologists is concerning. “I look at this study as an opportunity for education that we can reinforce the importance of a secondary evaluation for our osteoporosis patients and really tailor which additional tests should be ordered for the individual patient,” Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

In the poster, Dr. Bulchandani and colleagues wrote, “Further intervention will be aimed to ensure physicians undertake adequate evaluation before considering further treatment directions.” Possibilities that have been discussed include electronic health record alerts and educational materials for primary care providers, she told this news organization.

Dr. Manglani and Dr. Bulchandani had no disclosures. Dr. Pessah-Pollack is an advisor for Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly has announced positive phase 3 top-line results for its once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and those who require multiple daily insulin injections.

The new data come from the company’s QWINT-2 and QWINT-4 phase 3 clinical trials. In both, efsitora was noninferior to daily basal insulin in lowering A1c. The comparator was once-daily degludec in QUINT-2 and glargine in QUINT-4.

These results come days before the once-weekly competitor, Novo Nordisk’s insulin icodec, will be discussed by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. On May 24, 2024, the panel will review safety and efficacy of icodec for the proposed indication of improving glycemic control in adults with diabetes.
 

Hypoglycemia and Affordability Are Concerns

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, told this news organization that she’s “cautiously optimistic” about once-weekly insulin. “I honestly think it’s going to have an important role in diabetes. … And I’m looking forward to learning how it’s going to help my patients.”

However, Dr. Peters also said she’s concerned about the possible risk for hypoglycemia with long-acting insulin, particularly in patients with variable schedules. “The real fear they have and I have is hypoglycemia. That being said, I think that it will be great for some patients where hypoglycemia is less of a concern, and they’re in a more stable environment. … I think there are patients who will really benefit but I have to figure out who those patients are.”

Dr. Peters, who takes care of many low-income patients, also pointed out that once approved, these newer insulins may not be affordable for those who could most benefit from them in terms of improved adherence. Insurance plans may not cover them initially, especially given that the data thus far show noninferiority, not superiority, to daily basal. “The patients in whom I would like to use it most are the patients who have the most trouble with social determinants of health and other issues. I really think it could really make a difference for them, but it won’t get there for a while.”

And, she noted, titrating doses of once-weekly insulin will likely come with a learning curve. “Having spent a lifetime adjusting basal insulin on a daily basis to suddenly do it on a weekly basis, as a diabetologist I’m going to have to get used to what that feels like.”
 

Topline Data Show Noninferiority to Daily Basal Insulin

In QWINT-2, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of once-daily insulin degludec for 52 weeks. Study participants were all new to using insulin, but some were using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

The treat-to-target trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint for hemoglobin A1c reduction at week 52. A1c values were lowered by 1.34 percentage points with efsitora compared with 1.26 for insulin degludec, resulting in non–significantly different A1c values of 6.87% and 6.95%, respectively.

In QWINT-4, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of daily insulin glargine for 26 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes who had previously been treated with basal insulin and at least two injections of premeal insulin per day. Participants were randomized to receive efsitora once weekly or insulin glargine once daily, and both groups used lispro before meals.

This trial also met its primary endpoint, with both reducing A1c by 1.07 percentage points at 26 weeks, resulting in levels of 7.12% and 7.11%, respectively.

The full results for QWINT-2 will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting this September.

Dr. Peters served on the advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care; Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Livongo; Medscape Medical News; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Omada Health; OptumHealth; Sanofi; and Zafgen. She received research support from Dexcom, MannKind Corporation, and Astra Zeneca and served as a member of a speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly has announced positive phase 3 top-line results for its once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and those who require multiple daily insulin injections.

The new data come from the company’s QWINT-2 and QWINT-4 phase 3 clinical trials. In both, efsitora was noninferior to daily basal insulin in lowering A1c. The comparator was once-daily degludec in QUINT-2 and glargine in QUINT-4.

These results come days before the once-weekly competitor, Novo Nordisk’s insulin icodec, will be discussed by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. On May 24, 2024, the panel will review safety and efficacy of icodec for the proposed indication of improving glycemic control in adults with diabetes.
 

Hypoglycemia and Affordability Are Concerns

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, told this news organization that she’s “cautiously optimistic” about once-weekly insulin. “I honestly think it’s going to have an important role in diabetes. … And I’m looking forward to learning how it’s going to help my patients.”

However, Dr. Peters also said she’s concerned about the possible risk for hypoglycemia with long-acting insulin, particularly in patients with variable schedules. “The real fear they have and I have is hypoglycemia. That being said, I think that it will be great for some patients where hypoglycemia is less of a concern, and they’re in a more stable environment. … I think there are patients who will really benefit but I have to figure out who those patients are.”

Dr. Peters, who takes care of many low-income patients, also pointed out that once approved, these newer insulins may not be affordable for those who could most benefit from them in terms of improved adherence. Insurance plans may not cover them initially, especially given that the data thus far show noninferiority, not superiority, to daily basal. “The patients in whom I would like to use it most are the patients who have the most trouble with social determinants of health and other issues. I really think it could really make a difference for them, but it won’t get there for a while.”

And, she noted, titrating doses of once-weekly insulin will likely come with a learning curve. “Having spent a lifetime adjusting basal insulin on a daily basis to suddenly do it on a weekly basis, as a diabetologist I’m going to have to get used to what that feels like.”
 

Topline Data Show Noninferiority to Daily Basal Insulin

In QWINT-2, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of once-daily insulin degludec for 52 weeks. Study participants were all new to using insulin, but some were using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

The treat-to-target trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint for hemoglobin A1c reduction at week 52. A1c values were lowered by 1.34 percentage points with efsitora compared with 1.26 for insulin degludec, resulting in non–significantly different A1c values of 6.87% and 6.95%, respectively.

In QWINT-4, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of daily insulin glargine for 26 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes who had previously been treated with basal insulin and at least two injections of premeal insulin per day. Participants were randomized to receive efsitora once weekly or insulin glargine once daily, and both groups used lispro before meals.

This trial also met its primary endpoint, with both reducing A1c by 1.07 percentage points at 26 weeks, resulting in levels of 7.12% and 7.11%, respectively.

The full results for QWINT-2 will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting this September.

Dr. Peters served on the advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care; Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Livongo; Medscape Medical News; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Omada Health; OptumHealth; Sanofi; and Zafgen. She received research support from Dexcom, MannKind Corporation, and Astra Zeneca and served as a member of a speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly has announced positive phase 3 top-line results for its once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) in insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes and those who require multiple daily insulin injections.

The new data come from the company’s QWINT-2 and QWINT-4 phase 3 clinical trials. In both, efsitora was noninferior to daily basal insulin in lowering A1c. The comparator was once-daily degludec in QUINT-2 and glargine in QUINT-4.

These results come days before the once-weekly competitor, Novo Nordisk’s insulin icodec, will be discussed by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. On May 24, 2024, the panel will review safety and efficacy of icodec for the proposed indication of improving glycemic control in adults with diabetes.
 

Hypoglycemia and Affordability Are Concerns

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, told this news organization that she’s “cautiously optimistic” about once-weekly insulin. “I honestly think it’s going to have an important role in diabetes. … And I’m looking forward to learning how it’s going to help my patients.”

However, Dr. Peters also said she’s concerned about the possible risk for hypoglycemia with long-acting insulin, particularly in patients with variable schedules. “The real fear they have and I have is hypoglycemia. That being said, I think that it will be great for some patients where hypoglycemia is less of a concern, and they’re in a more stable environment. … I think there are patients who will really benefit but I have to figure out who those patients are.”

Dr. Peters, who takes care of many low-income patients, also pointed out that once approved, these newer insulins may not be affordable for those who could most benefit from them in terms of improved adherence. Insurance plans may not cover them initially, especially given that the data thus far show noninferiority, not superiority, to daily basal. “The patients in whom I would like to use it most are the patients who have the most trouble with social determinants of health and other issues. I really think it could really make a difference for them, but it won’t get there for a while.”

And, she noted, titrating doses of once-weekly insulin will likely come with a learning curve. “Having spent a lifetime adjusting basal insulin on a daily basis to suddenly do it on a weekly basis, as a diabetologist I’m going to have to get used to what that feels like.”
 

Topline Data Show Noninferiority to Daily Basal Insulin

In QWINT-2, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of once-daily insulin degludec for 52 weeks. Study participants were all new to using insulin, but some were using glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists.

The treat-to-target trial met its primary noninferiority endpoint for hemoglobin A1c reduction at week 52. A1c values were lowered by 1.34 percentage points with efsitora compared with 1.26 for insulin degludec, resulting in non–significantly different A1c values of 6.87% and 6.95%, respectively.

In QWINT-4, efficacy and safety of once-weekly efsitora was compared with those of daily insulin glargine for 26 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes who had previously been treated with basal insulin and at least two injections of premeal insulin per day. Participants were randomized to receive efsitora once weekly or insulin glargine once daily, and both groups used lispro before meals.

This trial also met its primary endpoint, with both reducing A1c by 1.07 percentage points at 26 weeks, resulting in levels of 7.12% and 7.11%, respectively.

The full results for QWINT-2 will be presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting this September.

Dr. Peters served on the advisory board for Abbott Diabetes Care; Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Livongo; Medscape Medical News; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Omada Health; OptumHealth; Sanofi; and Zafgen. She received research support from Dexcom, MannKind Corporation, and Astra Zeneca and served as a member of a speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes don’t have higher gastric volumes than those without diabetes after following standard preoperative fasting instructions, suggested a study from a team of anesthesiologist researchers.

However, an endocrinologist faulted the study in part because the participants appeared to be healthier than typical populations with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, the issue is now further complicated by the widespread use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the treatment of both type 2 diabetes and weight loss. These drugs, which were introduced after the study’s enrollment period, work in part by delaying gastric emptying.

The new data come from a prospective study of 84 people with diabetes (85% with type 2) and 96 without diabetes, all with a body mass index (BMI) < 40, who were undergoing elective surgery. A gastric ultrasound was used to assess their gastric contents after they had followed the standard preoperative fasting guidelines of stopping solids 8 hours prior to the procedure and clearing liquids 2 hours prior.

There was no significant difference between the two groups in gastric volume (0.81 mL/kg with diabetes vs 0.87 mL/kg without) or in the proportion with “full stomach,” as designated by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines (any solid content or > 1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid), which was seen in 13 with diabetes (15.5%) and 11 (11.5%) without.

Published in Anesthesiology, the findings offer reassurance that different fasting instructions generally aren’t needed for people with diabetes in order to minimize the risk for perioperative pulmonary aspiration, lead author Anahi Perlas, MD, professor of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.

“We never change practice completely based on a single study, but I think in general, based on our findings, that most diabetic patients aren’t any different from nondiabetics when it comes to their gastric content after fasting, and our standard fasting instructions seem to be just as effective in ensuring an empty stomach.”

But, she added, “If someone has symptoms of gastroparesis or when in doubt, we can always do a gastric ultrasound exam at the bedside and see whether the stomach is full or empty ... it’s very quick, and it’s not difficult to do.”
 

Expert Identifies Noteworthy Study Limitations

In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Warner, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the findings “will be very helpful to anesthesiologists,” although he noted that the exclusion of people with a BMI > 40 is a limitation.

However, Michael Horowitz, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, director of the Endocrine and Metabolic Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and professor of medicine at Adelaide Medical School in Adelaide, Australia, disputed the study’s conclusions. He noted that the sample was small, and the participants had an average A1c of 7.2%. Fewer than half had microvascular or neuropathic complications. Thus, they were healthier than the general population with diabetes.

“They’ve picked the wrong group of diabetics,” said Dr. Horowitz, who specializes in gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. “This is not a group where you would expect a very high prevalence of delayed emptying.”

Gastric emptying of solids and liquids varies widely even among healthy people and more so in those with type 2 diabetes. About a third of those with above-target A1c levels have gastroparesis, while those more in the target range tend to have accelerated emptying, he explained.

And regarding the use of gastric ultrasound for those who are symptomatic, Dr. Horowitz said, “The relationship of symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, fullness, whatever it may be, with the rate of gastric emptying is weak at best. The association is not simply cause and effect.”
 

Are the Fasting Guidelines Flawed, Regardless of Diabetes Status?

Dr. Horowitz also faulted the ASA’s 2017 guidance revision for allowing clear liquids to be consumed up to 2 hours in advance of anesthesia because it doesn’t distinguish between liquids with and without calories.

“Whether you have diabetes or not, if you are allowed to have a sugar drink up to 2 hours before your operation, the majority of people empty at about 4 kcal/min, so they will still have some of that drink in their stomach,” he said. “If you want an empty stomach, the ASA guidelines are wrong.”

That explains why the study found relatively high rates of “full stomach” in both groups, 15.5% of those with diabetes and 11.5% of those without, he said.
 

The GLP-1 Agonist Factor

Although the study didn’t address GLP-1 receptor agonist use, Dr. Warner did in his accompanying editorial, noting that the drugs’ rapid expansion “will likely change how we use perioperative fasting guidelines. With these medications delaying gastric emptying times, we now have another risk factor for pulmonary aspiration to consider when applying fasting guidelines. The inconsistent impact of GLP-1 agonists on gastric emptying, ranging from little to significant, makes it difficult for anesthesiologists to gauge whether or not patients taking GLP-1 agonists are likely to have preoperative gastric liquid or solid contents that could cause subsequent damage if regurgitated.”

Gastric ultrasound can be helpful in this situation, Dr. Warner wrote. In addition, he endorsed the 2023 ASA guidance, which calls for withholding daily-dosed GLP-1 agonists on the day of the surgery and the weekly formulations for a week. And if gastrointestinal symptoms are present, delay elective procedures.

But Dr. Horowitz said those recommendations are likely insufficient as well, pointing to data suggesting that daily liraglutide can delay gastric emptying for up to 16 weeks in about a third of patients. Such studies haven’t been conducted by the manufacturers, particularly on the once-weekly formulations, and the ensuing risk for aspiration isn’t known.

“The slowing occurs in much lower doses than are used for glucose lowering,” Dr. Horowitz said. “It is very likely that plasma levels will need to be extremely low to avoid gastric slowing. The current guidelines fail to appreciate this. So, to withhold the short-acting drugs for 1 day is probably wrong. And to stop long-acting drugs for 1 week is almost certainly wrong too.”

But as for what should be done, he said, “I don’t actually know what you do about it. And no one does because there are no data available to answer the question.”

The study received funding from the Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation and the Canadian Society of Anesthesiologists. Dr. Perlas received support for nonclinical time through a merit award from the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, and the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network. She is an executive editor of the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and does consulting work for FujiFilm SonoSite. Dr. Horowitz had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two professional societies have issued new guidance for type 2 diabetes management in primary care, with one focused specifically on the use of the newer medications.

On April 19, 2024, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. The internal medicine group recommends the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as second-line treatment after metformin. They also advise against the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. 

The document was also presented simultaneously at the ACP annual meeting. 

And on April 15, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) posted its comprehensive Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 Abridged for Primary Care Professionals as a follow-up to the December 2023 publication of its full-length Standards. Section 9, Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment, covers the same ground as the ACP guidelines.
 

General Agreement but Some Differences

The recommendations generally agree regarding medication use, although there are some differences. Both societies continue to endorse metformin and lifestyle modification as first-line therapy for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, while ADA also gives the option of initial combination therapy with prioritization of avoiding hypoglycemia, ACP advises adding new medications only if glycemic goals aren’t met with lifestyle and metformin alone. 

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

1. Add an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. 

*Use an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure.

*Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

2. ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality.

Both ADA and ACP advise using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, and using GLP-1 agonists in patients for whom weight management is a priority. The ADA also advises using agents of either drug class with proven cardiovascular benefit for people with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease or who are at high risk.

ADA doesn’t advise against the use of DPP-4 inhibitors but doesn’t prioritize them either. Both insulin and sulfonylureas remain options for both, but they also are lower priority due to their potential for causing hypoglycemia. ACP says that sulfonylureas and long-acting insulin are “inferior to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity but may still have some limited value for glycemic control.” 

The two groups continue to differ regarding A1c goals, although both recommend individualization. The ACP generally advises levels between 7% and 8% for most adults with type 2 diabetes, and de-intensification of pharmacologic agents for those with A1c levels below 6.5%. On the other hand, ADA recommends A1c levels < 7% as long as that can be achieved safely. 

This is the first time ACP has addressed this topic in a guideline, panel chair Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, told this news organization. “Diabetes treatment, of course, is our bread and butter…but what we had done before was based on the need to identify a target, like glycosylated hemoglobin. What patients and physicians really want to know now is, who should receive these new drugs? Should they receive these new drugs? And what benefits do they have?”

Added Dr. Crandall, who is professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “At ACP we have a complicated process that I’m actually very proud of, where we’ve asked a lay public panel, as well at the members of our guideline committee, to rank what’s most important in terms of the health outcomes for this condition…And then we look at how to balance those risks and benefits to make the recommendations.” 

In the same Annals of Internal Medicine issue are two systematic reviews/meta-analyses that informed the new document, one on drug effectiveness and the other on cost-effectiveness. 

In the accompanying editorial from Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an internist and medical weight management specialist at Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, she notes, “the potential added benefits of these newer medications, including weight loss and cardiovascular and renal benefits, motivate their prescription, but cost and prior authorization hurdles can bar their use.”

Dr. Syed cites as “missing” from the ACP guidelines an analysis of comorbidities, including obesity. The reason for that, according to the document, is that “weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis.”

However, Dr. Syed notes that factoring in weight loss could improve the cost-effectiveness of the newer medications. She points out that the ADA Standards suggest a GLP-1 agonist with or without metformin as initial therapy options for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who might benefit from weight loss.

“The ACP guidelines strengthen the case for metformin as first-line medication for diabetes when comorbid conditions are not present. Metformin is cost-effective and has excellent hemoglobin A1c reduction. The accompanying economic analysis tells us that in the absence of comorbidity, the newer medication classes do not seem to be cost-effective. However, given that many patients with type 2 diabetes have obesity or existing cardiovascular or renal disease, the choice and accessibility of newer medications can be nuanced. The cost-effectiveness of GLP1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as initial diabetes therapy in the setting of various comorbid conditions warrants careful exploration.”

Dr. Crandall has no disclosures. Dr. Syed disclosed that her husband is employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two professional societies have issued new guidance for type 2 diabetes management in primary care, with one focused specifically on the use of the newer medications.

On April 19, 2024, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. The internal medicine group recommends the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as second-line treatment after metformin. They also advise against the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. 

The document was also presented simultaneously at the ACP annual meeting. 

And on April 15, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) posted its comprehensive Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 Abridged for Primary Care Professionals as a follow-up to the December 2023 publication of its full-length Standards. Section 9, Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment, covers the same ground as the ACP guidelines.
 

General Agreement but Some Differences

The recommendations generally agree regarding medication use, although there are some differences. Both societies continue to endorse metformin and lifestyle modification as first-line therapy for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, while ADA also gives the option of initial combination therapy with prioritization of avoiding hypoglycemia, ACP advises adding new medications only if glycemic goals aren’t met with lifestyle and metformin alone. 

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

1. Add an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. 

*Use an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure.

*Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

2. ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality.

Both ADA and ACP advise using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, and using GLP-1 agonists in patients for whom weight management is a priority. The ADA also advises using agents of either drug class with proven cardiovascular benefit for people with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease or who are at high risk.

ADA doesn’t advise against the use of DPP-4 inhibitors but doesn’t prioritize them either. Both insulin and sulfonylureas remain options for both, but they also are lower priority due to their potential for causing hypoglycemia. ACP says that sulfonylureas and long-acting insulin are “inferior to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity but may still have some limited value for glycemic control.” 

The two groups continue to differ regarding A1c goals, although both recommend individualization. The ACP generally advises levels between 7% and 8% for most adults with type 2 diabetes, and de-intensification of pharmacologic agents for those with A1c levels below 6.5%. On the other hand, ADA recommends A1c levels < 7% as long as that can be achieved safely. 

This is the first time ACP has addressed this topic in a guideline, panel chair Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, told this news organization. “Diabetes treatment, of course, is our bread and butter…but what we had done before was based on the need to identify a target, like glycosylated hemoglobin. What patients and physicians really want to know now is, who should receive these new drugs? Should they receive these new drugs? And what benefits do they have?”

Added Dr. Crandall, who is professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “At ACP we have a complicated process that I’m actually very proud of, where we’ve asked a lay public panel, as well at the members of our guideline committee, to rank what’s most important in terms of the health outcomes for this condition…And then we look at how to balance those risks and benefits to make the recommendations.” 

In the same Annals of Internal Medicine issue are two systematic reviews/meta-analyses that informed the new document, one on drug effectiveness and the other on cost-effectiveness. 

In the accompanying editorial from Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an internist and medical weight management specialist at Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, she notes, “the potential added benefits of these newer medications, including weight loss and cardiovascular and renal benefits, motivate their prescription, but cost and prior authorization hurdles can bar their use.”

Dr. Syed cites as “missing” from the ACP guidelines an analysis of comorbidities, including obesity. The reason for that, according to the document, is that “weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis.”

However, Dr. Syed notes that factoring in weight loss could improve the cost-effectiveness of the newer medications. She points out that the ADA Standards suggest a GLP-1 agonist with or without metformin as initial therapy options for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who might benefit from weight loss.

“The ACP guidelines strengthen the case for metformin as first-line medication for diabetes when comorbid conditions are not present. Metformin is cost-effective and has excellent hemoglobin A1c reduction. The accompanying economic analysis tells us that in the absence of comorbidity, the newer medication classes do not seem to be cost-effective. However, given that many patients with type 2 diabetes have obesity or existing cardiovascular or renal disease, the choice and accessibility of newer medications can be nuanced. The cost-effectiveness of GLP1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as initial diabetes therapy in the setting of various comorbid conditions warrants careful exploration.”

Dr. Crandall has no disclosures. Dr. Syed disclosed that her husband is employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two professional societies have issued new guidance for type 2 diabetes management in primary care, with one focused specifically on the use of the newer medications.

On April 19, 2024, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. The internal medicine group recommends the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, and sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as second-line treatment after metformin. They also advise against the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. 

The document was also presented simultaneously at the ACP annual meeting. 

And on April 15, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) posted its comprehensive Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 Abridged for Primary Care Professionals as a follow-up to the December 2023 publication of its full-length Standards. Section 9, Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment, covers the same ground as the ACP guidelines.
 

General Agreement but Some Differences

The recommendations generally agree regarding medication use, although there are some differences. Both societies continue to endorse metformin and lifestyle modification as first-line therapy for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, while ADA also gives the option of initial combination therapy with prioritization of avoiding hypoglycemia, ACP advises adding new medications only if glycemic goals aren’t met with lifestyle and metformin alone. 

The new ACP document gives two general recommendations:

1. Add an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control. 

*Use an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure.

*Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke.

2. ACP recommends against adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality.

Both ADA and ACP advise using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease, and using GLP-1 agonists in patients for whom weight management is a priority. The ADA also advises using agents of either drug class with proven cardiovascular benefit for people with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease or who are at high risk.

ADA doesn’t advise against the use of DPP-4 inhibitors but doesn’t prioritize them either. Both insulin and sulfonylureas remain options for both, but they also are lower priority due to their potential for causing hypoglycemia. ACP says that sulfonylureas and long-acting insulin are “inferior to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity but may still have some limited value for glycemic control.” 

The two groups continue to differ regarding A1c goals, although both recommend individualization. The ACP generally advises levels between 7% and 8% for most adults with type 2 diabetes, and de-intensification of pharmacologic agents for those with A1c levels below 6.5%. On the other hand, ADA recommends A1c levels < 7% as long as that can be achieved safely. 

This is the first time ACP has addressed this topic in a guideline, panel chair Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, told this news organization. “Diabetes treatment, of course, is our bread and butter…but what we had done before was based on the need to identify a target, like glycosylated hemoglobin. What patients and physicians really want to know now is, who should receive these new drugs? Should they receive these new drugs? And what benefits do they have?”

Added Dr. Crandall, who is professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “At ACP we have a complicated process that I’m actually very proud of, where we’ve asked a lay public panel, as well at the members of our guideline committee, to rank what’s most important in terms of the health outcomes for this condition…And then we look at how to balance those risks and benefits to make the recommendations.” 

In the same Annals of Internal Medicine issue are two systematic reviews/meta-analyses that informed the new document, one on drug effectiveness and the other on cost-effectiveness. 

In the accompanying editorial from Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an internist and medical weight management specialist at Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, she notes, “the potential added benefits of these newer medications, including weight loss and cardiovascular and renal benefits, motivate their prescription, but cost and prior authorization hurdles can bar their use.”

Dr. Syed cites as “missing” from the ACP guidelines an analysis of comorbidities, including obesity. The reason for that, according to the document, is that “weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis.”

However, Dr. Syed notes that factoring in weight loss could improve the cost-effectiveness of the newer medications. She points out that the ADA Standards suggest a GLP-1 agonist with or without metformin as initial therapy options for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes who might benefit from weight loss.

“The ACP guidelines strengthen the case for metformin as first-line medication for diabetes when comorbid conditions are not present. Metformin is cost-effective and has excellent hemoglobin A1c reduction. The accompanying economic analysis tells us that in the absence of comorbidity, the newer medication classes do not seem to be cost-effective. However, given that many patients with type 2 diabetes have obesity or existing cardiovascular or renal disease, the choice and accessibility of newer medications can be nuanced. The cost-effectiveness of GLP1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as initial diabetes therapy in the setting of various comorbid conditions warrants careful exploration.”

Dr. Crandall has no disclosures. Dr. Syed disclosed that her husband is employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.