Miriam E. Tucker

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.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated the Eversense (Sensionics, Inc; Ascencia Diabetes Care) implanted continuous glucose monitor (CGM) an “integrated CGM,” meaning it can be used in conjunction with insulin pumps as part of an automated insulin delivery system (AID). 

The Eversense now joins Dexcom’s G6 and G7 and the Freestyle Libre 2 Plus in being compatible with multiple different branded insulin pumps as part of AID systems, and it is the only implantable one. 

The sensor device is inserted under the skin of the patient’s upper arm by a healthcare provider and a transmitter is worn over it on the skin. The FDA approved the Eversense in June 2018 for 3-month use and in February 2022  for use up to 6 months. It is indicated for people with diabetes aged 18 years and older.

Fingerstick blood glucose measurements are still required for calibration once a day after day 21, when symptoms don’t match the CGM information, or when taking tetracycline medications. 

According to Sensionics, the Eversense is “the most accurate CGM in the critical low glucose ranges with essentially no compression lows.” The latter refers to ‘false low’ alarms that sometimes occur when a person presses on the device, such as during sleep.

“As we look ahead, we are focused on progressing our partnership discussions and software developments, and look forward to providing more updates,” Sensionics said in a statement.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated the Eversense (Sensionics, Inc; Ascencia Diabetes Care) implanted continuous glucose monitor (CGM) an “integrated CGM,” meaning it can be used in conjunction with insulin pumps as part of an automated insulin delivery system (AID). 

The Eversense now joins Dexcom’s G6 and G7 and the Freestyle Libre 2 Plus in being compatible with multiple different branded insulin pumps as part of AID systems, and it is the only implantable one. 

The sensor device is inserted under the skin of the patient’s upper arm by a healthcare provider and a transmitter is worn over it on the skin. The FDA approved the Eversense in June 2018 for 3-month use and in February 2022  for use up to 6 months. It is indicated for people with diabetes aged 18 years and older.

Fingerstick blood glucose measurements are still required for calibration once a day after day 21, when symptoms don’t match the CGM information, or when taking tetracycline medications. 

According to Sensionics, the Eversense is “the most accurate CGM in the critical low glucose ranges with essentially no compression lows.” The latter refers to ‘false low’ alarms that sometimes occur when a person presses on the device, such as during sleep.

“As we look ahead, we are focused on progressing our partnership discussions and software developments, and look forward to providing more updates,” Sensionics said in a statement.
 

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated the Eversense (Sensionics, Inc; Ascencia Diabetes Care) implanted continuous glucose monitor (CGM) an “integrated CGM,” meaning it can be used in conjunction with insulin pumps as part of an automated insulin delivery system (AID). 

The Eversense now joins Dexcom’s G6 and G7 and the Freestyle Libre 2 Plus in being compatible with multiple different branded insulin pumps as part of AID systems, and it is the only implantable one. 

The sensor device is inserted under the skin of the patient’s upper arm by a healthcare provider and a transmitter is worn over it on the skin. The FDA approved the Eversense in June 2018 for 3-month use and in February 2022  for use up to 6 months. It is indicated for people with diabetes aged 18 years and older.

Fingerstick blood glucose measurements are still required for calibration once a day after day 21, when symptoms don’t match the CGM information, or when taking tetracycline medications. 

According to Sensionics, the Eversense is “the most accurate CGM in the critical low glucose ranges with essentially no compression lows.” The latter refers to ‘false low’ alarms that sometimes occur when a person presses on the device, such as during sleep.

“As we look ahead, we are focused on progressing our partnership discussions and software developments, and look forward to providing more updates,” Sensionics said in a statement.
 

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

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

No significant association was found between the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and thyroid cancer over nearly 4 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• A cohort study using data from nationwide registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between 2007 and 2021 included 145,410 patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 291,667 propensity score-matched patients initiating dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors as active comparators.
• Additional analysis included 111,744 who initiated GLP-1 RAs and 148,179 patients initiating sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
• Overall, mean follow-up time was 3.9 years, with 25% followed for more than 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common individual GLP-1 RAs were liraglutide (57.3%) and semaglutide (32.9%).
• During follow-up, there were 76 incident thyroid cancer cases among GLP-1 RA users and 184 cases in DPP4 inhibitor users, giving incidence rates per 10,000 of 1.33 and 1.46, respectively, a nonsignificant difference (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31).
• Papillary thyroid cancer was the most common thyroid cancer subtype, followed by follicular and medullary, with no significant increases in risk with GLP-1 RAs by cancer type, although the numbers were small.
• In the SGLT2 inhibitor comparison, there was also no significantly increased thyroid cancer risk for GLP-1 RAs (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.65-2.05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the upper limit of the confidence interval, the findings are incompatible with more than a 31% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer. In absolute terms, this translates to no more than 0.36 excess cases per 10 000 person-years, a figure that should be interpreted against the background incidence of 1.46 per 10,000 person-years among the comparator group in the study populations.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Björn Pasternak, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues. It was published online on April 10, 2024, in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

Relatively short follow-up for cancer risk. Risk by individual GLP-1 RA not analyzed. Small event numbers. Observational, with potential for residual confounding and time-release bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Pasternak was supported by a consolidator investigator grant from Karolinska Institutet. Some of the coauthors had industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) is a gut microbiota-derived metabolite generated by metabolism of dietary L-carnitine, primarily from red meat, and choline, from a variety of animal source foods. TMAO has been shown to cause kidney injury and tubulointerstitial fibrosis in experimental models.

In this study, TMAO was independently associated with higher risks for incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) and faster kidney function decline in humans.

The findings suggest that TMAO may be a novel risk factor and intervention target for CKD prevention and treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was 10,564 participants from two community-based, prospective cohorts without baseline CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²).
• Incident CKD was defined as eGFR decline ≥ 30% from baseline, resulting in eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m².

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median 9.4 years, 979 incident CKD events occurred.
• Correlation between baseline TMAO and total meat intake was small but statistically significant (P = .08).
• After adjustments for sociodemographic, lifestyle, diet, and cardiovascular risk factors, higher plasma TMAO was associated with more than doubled CKD incidence (hazard ratio, 2.24 for top vs bottom quintile).
• Higher TMAO levels were also associated with greater annual eGFR decline (top vs bottom quintile eGFR change = −0.43 mL/min/1.73 m² per year.
• Compared with other major CKD risk factors, the association for the top vs bottom TMAO quintile (−0.43 mL/min/1.73 m² per year) was similar to that seen per 10 years of older age (−0.43) and presence of diabetes (−0.51), and larger than that seen comparing Black vs non-Black race (−0.28) and per 10 mm Hg systolic blood pressure (−0.16).

IN PRACTICE:

“TMAO levels are highly modifiable by both lifestyle-like diet and pharmacologic interventions. Besides using novel drugs to lower TMAO in patients, using dietary interventions to lower TMAO in the general population could be a cost-efficient and low-risk preventive strategy for chronic kidney disease development. ... These findings support future studies to investigate whether lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions to lower TMAO may prevent CKD development and progression.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Meng Wang, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues and published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

LIMITATIONS:

Observational design, can’t exclude residual confounding.

Inter-assay variability.

Use of International Classification of Diseases codes for hospitalization-based CKD, subject to reporting errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and an American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Wang had no disclosures but several coauthors have patents on various diagnostics and/or industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) is a gut microbiota-derived metabolite generated by metabolism of dietary L-carnitine, primarily from red meat, and choline, from a variety of animal source foods. TMAO has been shown to cause kidney injury and tubulointerstitial fibrosis in experimental models.

In this study, TMAO was independently associated with higher risks for incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) and faster kidney function decline in humans.

The findings suggest that TMAO may be a novel risk factor and intervention target for CKD prevention and treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was 10,564 participants from two community-based, prospective cohorts without baseline CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²).
• Incident CKD was defined as eGFR decline ≥ 30% from baseline, resulting in eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m².

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median 9.4 years, 979 incident CKD events occurred.
• Correlation between baseline TMAO and total meat intake was small but statistically significant (P = .08).
• After adjustments for sociodemographic, lifestyle, diet, and cardiovascular risk factors, higher plasma TMAO was associated with more than doubled CKD incidence (hazard ratio, 2.24 for top vs bottom quintile).
• Higher TMAO levels were also associated with greater annual eGFR decline (top vs bottom quintile eGFR change = −0.43 mL/min/1.73 m² per year.
• Compared with other major CKD risk factors, the association for the top vs bottom TMAO quintile (−0.43 mL/min/1.73 m² per year) was similar to that seen per 10 years of older age (−0.43) and presence of diabetes (−0.51), and larger than that seen comparing Black vs non-Black race (−0.28) and per 10 mm Hg systolic blood pressure (−0.16).

IN PRACTICE:

“TMAO levels are highly modifiable by both lifestyle-like diet and pharmacologic interventions. Besides using novel drugs to lower TMAO in patients, using dietary interventions to lower TMAO in the general population could be a cost-efficient and low-risk preventive strategy for chronic kidney disease development. ... These findings support future studies to investigate whether lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions to lower TMAO may prevent CKD development and progression.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Meng Wang, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues and published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

LIMITATIONS:

Observational design, can’t exclude residual confounding.

Inter-assay variability.

Use of International Classification of Diseases codes for hospitalization-based CKD, subject to reporting errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and an American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Wang had no disclosures but several coauthors have patents on various diagnostics and/or industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) is a gut microbiota-derived metabolite generated by metabolism of dietary L-carnitine, primarily from red meat, and choline, from a variety of animal source foods. TMAO has been shown to cause kidney injury and tubulointerstitial fibrosis in experimental models.

In this study, TMAO was independently associated with higher risks for incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) and faster kidney function decline in humans.

The findings suggest that TMAO may be a novel risk factor and intervention target for CKD prevention and treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Study population was 10,564 participants from two community-based, prospective cohorts without baseline CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m²).
• Incident CKD was defined as eGFR decline ≥ 30% from baseline, resulting in eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m².

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median 9.4 years, 979 incident CKD events occurred.
• Correlation between baseline TMAO and total meat intake was small but statistically significant (P = .08).
• After adjustments for sociodemographic, lifestyle, diet, and cardiovascular risk factors, higher plasma TMAO was associated with more than doubled CKD incidence (hazard ratio, 2.24 for top vs bottom quintile).
• Higher TMAO levels were also associated with greater annual eGFR decline (top vs bottom quintile eGFR change = −0.43 mL/min/1.73 m² per year.
• Compared with other major CKD risk factors, the association for the top vs bottom TMAO quintile (−0.43 mL/min/1.73 m² per year) was similar to that seen per 10 years of older age (−0.43) and presence of diabetes (−0.51), and larger than that seen comparing Black vs non-Black race (−0.28) and per 10 mm Hg systolic blood pressure (−0.16).

IN PRACTICE:

“TMAO levels are highly modifiable by both lifestyle-like diet and pharmacologic interventions. Besides using novel drugs to lower TMAO in patients, using dietary interventions to lower TMAO in the general population could be a cost-efficient and low-risk preventive strategy for chronic kidney disease development. ... These findings support future studies to investigate whether lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions to lower TMAO may prevent CKD development and progression.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Meng Wang, PhD, of Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues and published online in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

LIMITATIONS:

Observational design, can’t exclude residual confounding.

Inter-assay variability.

Use of International Classification of Diseases codes for hospitalization-based CKD, subject to reporting errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and an American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellowship. Dr. Wang had no disclosures but several coauthors have patents on various diagnostics and/or industry disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Statins raise the risks for increased glucose levels and the development of type 2 diabetes among people who don’t have it at baseline, but those risks are outweighed by the cardiovascular benefit, new data suggested.

The findings come from an analysis of individual participant data from a total of 23 randomized trials of statin therapy involving 154,664 individuals. In people without diabetes at baseline, statin therapy produces a dose-dependent increase in the risk for diabetes diagnosis, particularly among those whose glycemia marker levels are already at the diagnostic threshold.

Statins also tend to raise glucose levels in people who already have diabetes, but “the diabetes-related risks arising from the small changes in glycemia resulting from statin therapy are greatly outweighed by the benefits of statins on major vascular events when the direct clinical consequences of these outcomes are taken into consideration,” wrote the authors of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration in their paper, published online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Moreover, they say, “since the effect of statin therapy on measures of glycemia within an individual is small, there is likely to be little clinical benefit in measuring glucose concentrations and A1c values routinely after starting statin therapy with the aim of making comparisons to values taken before the initiation of a statin. However, people should continue to be screened for diabetes and associated risk factors and have their glycemic control monitored in accordance with current clinical guidelines.”

The CTT is co-led by Christina Reith, MBChB, PhD, and David Preiss, PhD, FRCPath, MRCP, both of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England.

In an accompanying editorial, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, and Marie Pigeyre, MD, PhD, both of McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, noted that the decreased absolute annual incidence of life-threatening cardiovascular outcomes with statins in people at high risk for type 2 diabetes “clearly exceeds the 0.1%-1.3% per year increased absolute incidence of type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Gerstein and Dr. Pigeyre also said “these findings emphasize the importance of holistic care. As people at risk for cardiovascular outcomes are also at risk for type 2 diabetes, any prescription of a statin should be accompanied by promoting proven strategies to prevent or delay diabetes, such as modest weight reduction and increased physical activity. Finally, these findings emphasize the importance of always being alert for harmful adverse effects, even with the most beneficial and successful preventive therapies.”
 

Statins Raise Diabetes Risk, Glucose Levels Slightly

The meta-analysis of trials in the CTT Collaboration included individual participant data from 19 double-blind randomized, controlled trials with a median follow-up of 4.3 years comparing statins with placebo in a total of 123,940 participants, including 18% who had known type 2 diabetes at randomization. Also analyzed were another four double-blind trials of lower- vs higher-intensity statins involving a total of 30,724 participants followed for a median of 4.9 years, with 15% having diabetes at baseline.

In the 19 trials of low- or moderate-intensity statins vs placebo, statins resulted in a significant 10% increase in new-onset diabetes compared with placebo (rate ratio, 1.10), while high-intensity statins raised the risk by an also significant 36% (1.36). This translated to a mean absolute excess of 0.12% per year of treatment.

Compared with less intensive statin therapy, more intensive statin therapy resulted in a significant 10% proportional increase in new-onset diabetes (1.10), giving an absolute annual excess of 0.22%.

In the statin vs placebo trials, differences in A1c values from placebo were 0.06 percentage points higher for low- or moderate-intensity statins and 0.08 points greater for high-intensity statins.

Nearly two thirds (62%) of the excess cases of new-onset diabetes occurred among participants in the highest quarter of the baseline glycemia distribution for both low-intensity or moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.

And among participants who already had diabetes at baseline, there was a significant 10% relative increase in worsening glycemia (defined by adverse glycemic event, A1c increase of ≥ 0.5 percentage points, or medication escalation) with low- or moderate-intensity statins compared with placebo and a 24% relative increase in the high-intensity trials.

The Nuffield Department of Population Health has an explicit policy of not accepting any personal honoraria payments directly or indirectly from the pharmaceutical and food industries. It seeks reimbursement to the University of Oxford for the costs of travel and accommodation to participate in scientific meetings. Dr. Reith reported receiving funding to the University of Oxford from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and holding unpaid roles on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium as a board member and WHO as a scientific advisor. Dr. Preiss reported receiving funding to his research institution (but no personal funding) from Novartis for the ORION 4 trial of inclisiran, Novo Nordisk for the ASCEND PLUS trial of semaglutide, and Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly for the EMPA-KIDNEY trial and being a committee member for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline.

Dr. Gerstein holds the McMaster-Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care. He reported research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Hanmi, and Merck; continuing medical education grants to McMaster University from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, DKSH, Zuellig Pharma, Sanofi, and Jiangsu Hanson; and consulting fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Carbon Brand, Sanofi, Kowa, and Hanmi. Pigeyre had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.