User login
More weight loss with time-restricted eating
TOPLINE:
, compared with calorie restriction, while hemoglobin A1c levels dropped with both approaches, compared with no intervention.
METHODOLOGY:
- Six-month clinical trial of 75 adult participants with type 2 diabetes and obesity, randomly assigned to either 8-hour TRE (noon to 8 p.m. only) without calorie counting, a 25% daily calorie restriction, or control.
TAKEAWAY:
- The primary outcome, change in body weight at month 6, was –3.56% (P = .004) with TRE vs. –1.78% with calorie restriction (P = .06), compared with controls.
- The mean calorie deficit over the 6 months was –313 kcal/day with TRE, –197 kcal/day with calorie restriction, and –16 kcal/day for controls.
- Self-reported adherence to the regimens was 87% of days with 8-hour TRE vs. 68% reporting adherence with calorie goals over the 6 months.
- A1c levels were reduced significantly by 0.91% in the TRE group and 0.94% in the calorie-restriction group, relative to controls, with no differences between the two intervention groups.
- No serious adverse events were reported.
- Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia occurrences didn’t differ between groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings ... show that TRE is safe in patients who are using either diet alone or medications to control their [type 2 diabetes]. However, for people using sulfonylureas and/or insulin, adopting a TRE regimen will require medication changes and regular monitoring, particularly in the initial stages of the diet.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Vasiliki Pavlou, MS, RD, of the department of kinesiology and nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- Relatively short trial duration.
- Lack of blinding.
- A higher proportion in the TRE group were using newer type 2 diabetes medications at baseline.
- Self-reported dietary intake.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago, and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Pavlou reports no relevant financial relationships. Several authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, compared with calorie restriction, while hemoglobin A1c levels dropped with both approaches, compared with no intervention.
METHODOLOGY:
- Six-month clinical trial of 75 adult participants with type 2 diabetes and obesity, randomly assigned to either 8-hour TRE (noon to 8 p.m. only) without calorie counting, a 25% daily calorie restriction, or control.
TAKEAWAY:
- The primary outcome, change in body weight at month 6, was –3.56% (P = .004) with TRE vs. –1.78% with calorie restriction (P = .06), compared with controls.
- The mean calorie deficit over the 6 months was –313 kcal/day with TRE, –197 kcal/day with calorie restriction, and –16 kcal/day for controls.
- Self-reported adherence to the regimens was 87% of days with 8-hour TRE vs. 68% reporting adherence with calorie goals over the 6 months.
- A1c levels were reduced significantly by 0.91% in the TRE group and 0.94% in the calorie-restriction group, relative to controls, with no differences between the two intervention groups.
- No serious adverse events were reported.
- Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia occurrences didn’t differ between groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings ... show that TRE is safe in patients who are using either diet alone or medications to control their [type 2 diabetes]. However, for people using sulfonylureas and/or insulin, adopting a TRE regimen will require medication changes and regular monitoring, particularly in the initial stages of the diet.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Vasiliki Pavlou, MS, RD, of the department of kinesiology and nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- Relatively short trial duration.
- Lack of blinding.
- A higher proportion in the TRE group were using newer type 2 diabetes medications at baseline.
- Self-reported dietary intake.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago, and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Pavlou reports no relevant financial relationships. Several authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, compared with calorie restriction, while hemoglobin A1c levels dropped with both approaches, compared with no intervention.
METHODOLOGY:
- Six-month clinical trial of 75 adult participants with type 2 diabetes and obesity, randomly assigned to either 8-hour TRE (noon to 8 p.m. only) without calorie counting, a 25% daily calorie restriction, or control.
TAKEAWAY:
- The primary outcome, change in body weight at month 6, was –3.56% (P = .004) with TRE vs. –1.78% with calorie restriction (P = .06), compared with controls.
- The mean calorie deficit over the 6 months was –313 kcal/day with TRE, –197 kcal/day with calorie restriction, and –16 kcal/day for controls.
- Self-reported adherence to the regimens was 87% of days with 8-hour TRE vs. 68% reporting adherence with calorie goals over the 6 months.
- A1c levels were reduced significantly by 0.91% in the TRE group and 0.94% in the calorie-restriction group, relative to controls, with no differences between the two intervention groups.
- No serious adverse events were reported.
- Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia occurrences didn’t differ between groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings ... show that TRE is safe in patients who are using either diet alone or medications to control their [type 2 diabetes]. However, for people using sulfonylureas and/or insulin, adopting a TRE regimen will require medication changes and regular monitoring, particularly in the initial stages of the diet.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Vasiliki Pavlou, MS, RD, of the department of kinesiology and nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
- Relatively short trial duration.
- Lack of blinding.
- A higher proportion in the TRE group were using newer type 2 diabetes medications at baseline.
- Self-reported dietary intake.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago, and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Pavlou reports no relevant financial relationships. Several authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Testosterone replacement benefits men with type 2 diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.
“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.
Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.
Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).
Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.
“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.
Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.
Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”
At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”
However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.
“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.
As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.
In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”
Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.
“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.
Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.
Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).
Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.
“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.
Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.
Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”
At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”
However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.
“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.
As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.
In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”
Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.
“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.
Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.
Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).
Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.
“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.
Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.
Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”
At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”
However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.
“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.
As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.
In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”
Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
New ‘twincretin’ pemvidutide: Another option for obesity
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.
Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.
In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.
“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.
Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.
Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”
Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”
Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure
Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.
Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.
The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.
In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.
The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.
Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.
Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.
Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.
As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.
“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.
Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”
The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.
Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.
In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.
“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.
Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.
Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”
Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”
Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure
Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.
Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.
The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.
In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.
The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.
Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.
Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.
Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.
As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.
“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.
Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”
The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.
Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.
In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.
“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.
Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.
Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”
Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”
Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure
Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.
Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.
The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.
In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.
The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.
Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.
Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.
Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.
As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.
“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.
Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”
The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.
Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
New hyperglycemia emergency guidance updates DKA definition
HAMBURG, GERMANY – along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.
Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).
New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.
The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.
While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.
The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends
The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.
However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.
“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.
For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.
However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.
Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.
As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.
For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.
Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.
“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”
But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.
“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium
Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.
Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.
And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA.
Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.
Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.
The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence
In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.
For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.
Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical
Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.
Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.
Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.
Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”
Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”
Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.
Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).
New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.
The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.
While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.
The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends
The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.
However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.
“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.
For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.
However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.
Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.
As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.
For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.
Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.
“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”
But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.
“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium
Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.
Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.
And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA.
Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.
Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.
The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence
In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.
For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.
Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical
Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.
Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.
Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.
Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”
Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”
Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.
Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).
New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.
The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.
While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.
The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends
The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.
However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.
“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.
For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.
However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.
Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.
As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.
For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.
Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.
“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”
But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.
“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium
Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.
Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.
And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA.
Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.
Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.
The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence
In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.
For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.
Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical
Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.
Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.
Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.
Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”
Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”
Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
Precision medicine takes individual approach to diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY –
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a dearth of data
Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY –
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a dearth of data
Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY –
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a dearth of data
Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Metformin treatment shows benefit in gestational diabetes
HAMBURG –
Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.
“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.
Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.
Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.
“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.
Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”
Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”
She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”
But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”
So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”
Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit
The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.
The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).
Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).
Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).
On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).
Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.
More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).
Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).
Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).
There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.
Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”
The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.
Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG –
Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.
“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.
Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.
Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.
“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.
Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”
Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”
She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”
But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”
So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”
Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit
The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.
The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).
Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).
Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).
On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).
Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.
More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).
Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).
Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).
There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.
Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”
The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.
Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG –
Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.
“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.
There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.
Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.
Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.
“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.
Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”
Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”
She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”
But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”
So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”
Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit
The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.
The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).
Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).
Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).
On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).
Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.
More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).
Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).
Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).
There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.
Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”
The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.
Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
EASD 2023: A deeper dive into type 1 and type 2 diabetes
Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.
In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.
Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.
“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.
Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways
Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.
In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”
In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.
Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”
In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.
“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”
A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”
The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive
For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”
Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.
Focus on complications: The known and the emerging
The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.
Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”
As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.
According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”
Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.
In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.
Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.
“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.
Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways
Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.
In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”
In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.
Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”
In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.
“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”
A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”
The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive
For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”
Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.
Focus on complications: The known and the emerging
The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.
Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”
As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.
According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”
Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.
In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.
Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.
“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.
Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways
Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.
In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”
In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.
Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”
In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.
“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”
A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”
The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive
For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”
Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.
Focus on complications: The known and the emerging
The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.
Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”
As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.
According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”
Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Weekly insulin with dosing app beneficial in type 2 diabetes
TOPLINE:
with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
- A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).
TAKEAWAY:
- A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
- Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
- Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).
IN PRACTICE:
“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
- A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).
TAKEAWAY:
- A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
- Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
- Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).
IN PRACTICE:
“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
- A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).
TAKEAWAY:
- A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
- Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
- Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).
IN PRACTICE:
“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Are vitamin D levels key to canagliflozin’s fracture risk?
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.
The new findings, from a small study of Amish adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL) but without diabetes or osteoporosis, suggest that physicians consider screening for vitamin D deficiency prior to prescribing SGLT2 inhibitor. Alternatively, these patients can simply be prescribed safe, inexpensive, OTC vitamin D supplements without being screening, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Something as simple as OTC vitamin D might protect against bone fractures caused by chronic multiyear treatment with a drug,” study lead author Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said in an interview.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11 adults with vitamin D deficiency underwent two canagliflozin challenge protocols of 300 mg/d for 5 days, once before and once after vitamin D3 supplementation (either 50,000 IU per week or twice weekly for body mass index < 30 kg/m2 or ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively), to achieve 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL.
When the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin significantly decreased 1,25(OH)2D levels by 31.3%, from 43.8 pg/mL on day 1 to 29.1 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .0003). In contrast, after receiving the vitamin D3 supplements, canagliflozin reduced mean 1,25(OH)2D levels by a nonsignificant 9.3%, from 45 pg/mL on day 1 to 41 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .3).
“Thus, [vitamin D3] supplementation provided statistically significant protection from the adverse effect of canagliflozin to decrease mean plasma levels of 1,25(OH)2D (P = .04),” Yazdi and colleagues wrote.
Similarly, when the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin was associated with a significant 36.2% increase in mean parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, from 47.5 pg/mL on day 1 to 58.5 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .0009). In contrast, after vitamin D3 supplementation, the increase in PTH was far less, from 48.4 pg/mL on day 1 to 53.3 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .02).
Therefore, the supplementation “significantly decreased the magnitude of the canagliflozin-induced increase in mean levels of PTH (P = .005),” they wrote.
Also, in the vitamin D deficient state, canagliflozin significantly increased mean serum phosphorous on day 3 in comparison with day 1 (P = .007), while after supplementation, that change was also insignificant (P = .8).
“We are saying that SGLT2 inhibitors, when superimposed on vitamin D deficiency, is bad for bone health. This group of people have two important risk factors – vitamin D deficiency and SGLT2 inhibitors – and are distinct from the general population of people who are not vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Taylor noted.
The findings “raise interesting questions about how to proceed,” he said in an interview, since “the gold standard study – in this case, a fracture prevention study – will never be done because it would cost more than $100 million. Vitamin D costs only $10-$20 per year, and at appropriate doses, is extremely safe. At worst, vitamin D supplements are unnecessary. At best, vitamin D supplements can protect some patients against a serious drug toxicity, bone fracture.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and receives an inventor’s share of royalties from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases for metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. Dr. Yazdi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.
The new findings, from a small study of Amish adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL) but without diabetes or osteoporosis, suggest that physicians consider screening for vitamin D deficiency prior to prescribing SGLT2 inhibitor. Alternatively, these patients can simply be prescribed safe, inexpensive, OTC vitamin D supplements without being screening, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Something as simple as OTC vitamin D might protect against bone fractures caused by chronic multiyear treatment with a drug,” study lead author Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said in an interview.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11 adults with vitamin D deficiency underwent two canagliflozin challenge protocols of 300 mg/d for 5 days, once before and once after vitamin D3 supplementation (either 50,000 IU per week or twice weekly for body mass index < 30 kg/m2 or ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively), to achieve 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL.
When the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin significantly decreased 1,25(OH)2D levels by 31.3%, from 43.8 pg/mL on day 1 to 29.1 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .0003). In contrast, after receiving the vitamin D3 supplements, canagliflozin reduced mean 1,25(OH)2D levels by a nonsignificant 9.3%, from 45 pg/mL on day 1 to 41 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .3).
“Thus, [vitamin D3] supplementation provided statistically significant protection from the adverse effect of canagliflozin to decrease mean plasma levels of 1,25(OH)2D (P = .04),” Yazdi and colleagues wrote.
Similarly, when the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin was associated with a significant 36.2% increase in mean parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, from 47.5 pg/mL on day 1 to 58.5 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .0009). In contrast, after vitamin D3 supplementation, the increase in PTH was far less, from 48.4 pg/mL on day 1 to 53.3 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .02).
Therefore, the supplementation “significantly decreased the magnitude of the canagliflozin-induced increase in mean levels of PTH (P = .005),” they wrote.
Also, in the vitamin D deficient state, canagliflozin significantly increased mean serum phosphorous on day 3 in comparison with day 1 (P = .007), while after supplementation, that change was also insignificant (P = .8).
“We are saying that SGLT2 inhibitors, when superimposed on vitamin D deficiency, is bad for bone health. This group of people have two important risk factors – vitamin D deficiency and SGLT2 inhibitors – and are distinct from the general population of people who are not vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Taylor noted.
The findings “raise interesting questions about how to proceed,” he said in an interview, since “the gold standard study – in this case, a fracture prevention study – will never be done because it would cost more than $100 million. Vitamin D costs only $10-$20 per year, and at appropriate doses, is extremely safe. At worst, vitamin D supplements are unnecessary. At best, vitamin D supplements can protect some patients against a serious drug toxicity, bone fracture.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and receives an inventor’s share of royalties from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases for metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. Dr. Yazdi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.
The new findings, from a small study of Amish adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL) but without diabetes or osteoporosis, suggest that physicians consider screening for vitamin D deficiency prior to prescribing SGLT2 inhibitor. Alternatively, these patients can simply be prescribed safe, inexpensive, OTC vitamin D supplements without being screening, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Something as simple as OTC vitamin D might protect against bone fractures caused by chronic multiyear treatment with a drug,” study lead author Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said in an interview.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11 adults with vitamin D deficiency underwent two canagliflozin challenge protocols of 300 mg/d for 5 days, once before and once after vitamin D3 supplementation (either 50,000 IU per week or twice weekly for body mass index < 30 kg/m2 or ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively), to achieve 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL.
When the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin significantly decreased 1,25(OH)2D levels by 31.3%, from 43.8 pg/mL on day 1 to 29.1 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .0003). In contrast, after receiving the vitamin D3 supplements, canagliflozin reduced mean 1,25(OH)2D levels by a nonsignificant 9.3%, from 45 pg/mL on day 1 to 41 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .3).
“Thus, [vitamin D3] supplementation provided statistically significant protection from the adverse effect of canagliflozin to decrease mean plasma levels of 1,25(OH)2D (P = .04),” Yazdi and colleagues wrote.
Similarly, when the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin was associated with a significant 36.2% increase in mean parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, from 47.5 pg/mL on day 1 to 58.5 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .0009). In contrast, after vitamin D3 supplementation, the increase in PTH was far less, from 48.4 pg/mL on day 1 to 53.3 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .02).
Therefore, the supplementation “significantly decreased the magnitude of the canagliflozin-induced increase in mean levels of PTH (P = .005),” they wrote.
Also, in the vitamin D deficient state, canagliflozin significantly increased mean serum phosphorous on day 3 in comparison with day 1 (P = .007), while after supplementation, that change was also insignificant (P = .8).
“We are saying that SGLT2 inhibitors, when superimposed on vitamin D deficiency, is bad for bone health. This group of people have two important risk factors – vitamin D deficiency and SGLT2 inhibitors – and are distinct from the general population of people who are not vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Taylor noted.
The findings “raise interesting questions about how to proceed,” he said in an interview, since “the gold standard study – in this case, a fracture prevention study – will never be done because it would cost more than $100 million. Vitamin D costs only $10-$20 per year, and at appropriate doses, is extremely safe. At worst, vitamin D supplements are unnecessary. At best, vitamin D supplements can protect some patients against a serious drug toxicity, bone fracture.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and receives an inventor’s share of royalties from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases for metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. Dr. Yazdi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM
Waist-hip ratio a stronger mortality predictor than BMI
TOPLINE:
Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
- A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
- The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
- Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
- There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
- Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
- The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”
SOURCE:
Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.
DISCLOSURES:
Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
- A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
- The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
- Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
- There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
- Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
- The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”
SOURCE:
Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.
DISCLOSURES:
Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Compared with body mass index, waist-hip ratio (WHR) had the strongest and most consistent association with all-cause mortality and was the only measurement unaffected by BMI.
METHODOLOGY:
- Cohort study of incident deaths from the U.K. Biobank (2006-2022), including data from 22 centers across the United Kingdom.
- A total of 387,672 participants were divided into a discovery cohort (n = 337,078) and validation cohort (n = 50,594), with the latter consisting of 25,297 deaths and 2,297 controls.
- The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses.
- Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization analyses.
TAKEAWAY:
- In adjusted analysis, a J-shaped association was found for both measured BMI and fat mass index (FMI), whereas the association with WHR was linear (hazard ratio 1.41 per standard deviation increase).
- There was a significant association between all three adiposity measures and all-cause mortality, with odds ratio 1.29 per SD change in genetically determined BMI (P = 1.44×10-13), 1.45 per SD change in genetically determined FMI, 1.45 (P = 6.27×10-30), and 1.51 per SD change in genetically determined WHR (P = 2.11×10-9).
- Compared with BMI, WHR had the stronger association with all-cause mortality, although it was not significantly stronger than FMI.
- The association of genetically determined BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality varied across quantiles of observed BMI, but WHR did not (P = .04, P = .02, and P = .58, for BMI, FMI, and WHR, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“Current World Health Organization recommendations for optimal BMI range are inaccurate across individuals with various body compositions and therefore suboptimal for clinical guidelines.”
SOURCE:
Study by Irfan Khan, MSc, of the Population Health Research Institute, David Braley Cardiac, Vascular, and Stroke Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. Published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
Study population was genetically homogeneous, White, and British, so results may not be representative of other racial or ethnic groups.
DISCLOSURES:
Study was funded by, and Irfan Khan received support from, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship–Masters Scholarship, awarded by the government of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN