Clinician Reviews

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Understanding more about the gut microbiome and how it may affect the development and treatment of heart failure could lead to a more personalized approach to managing the condition, a new review article suggests.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“The gut microbiome modulates heart failure pathophysiology, contributes to disease progression and therapeutic responses, and holds promise as a novel biomarker,” the authors note. “Interactions among the gut microbiome, diet, and medications offer potentially innovative modalities for management of patients with heart failure,” they add.

The review was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Over the past years we have gathered more understanding about how important the gut microbiome is in relation to how our bodies function overall and even though the cardiovascular system and the heart itself may appear to be quite distant from the gut, we know the gut microbiome affects the cardiovascular system and the physiology of heart failure,” lead author Petra Mamic, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

“We’ve also learnt that the microbiome is very personalized. It seems to be affected by a lot of intrinsic and as well as extrinsic factors. For cardiovascular diseases in particular, we always knew that diet and lifestyle were part of the environmental risk, and we now believe that the gut microbiome may be one of the factors that mediates that risk,” she said.

“Studies on the gut microbiome are difficult to do and we are right at the beginning of this type of research. But we have learned that the microbiome is altered or dysregulated in many diseases including many cardiovascular diseases, and many of the changes in the microbiome we see in different cardiovascular diseases seem to overlap,” she added.

Dr. Mamic explained that patients with heart failure have a microbiome that appears different and dysregulated, compared with the microbiome in healthy individuals.

“The difficulty is teasing out whether the microbiome changes are causing heart failure or if they are a consequence of the heart failure and all the medications and comorbidities associated with heart failure,” she commented.

Animal studies have shown that many microbial products, small molecules made by the microbiome, seem to affect how the heart recovers from injury, for example after a myocardial infarction, and how much the heart scars and hypertrophies after an injury, Dr. Mamic reported. These microbiome-derived small molecules can also affect blood pressure, which is dysregulated in heart failure.

Other products of the microbiome can be pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory, which can again affect the cardiovascular physiology and the heart, she noted.
 

High-fiber diet may be beneficial

One area of particular interest at present involves the role of short-chain fatty acids, which are a byproduct of microbes in the gut that digest fiber.

“These short chain fatty acids seem to have positive effects on the host physiology. They are anti-inflammatory; they lower blood pressure; and they seem to protect the heart from scarring and hypertrophy after injury. In heart failure, the gut microbes that make these short-chain fatty acids are significantly depleted,” Dr. Mamic explained.

They are an obvious focus of interest because these short-chain fatty acids are produced when gut bacteria break down dietary fiber, raising the possibility of beneficial effects from eating a high-fiber diet.

Another product of the gut microbiome of interest is trimethylamine N-oxide, formed when gut bacteria break down nutrients such as L-carnitine and phosphatidyl choline, nutrients abundant in foods of animal origin, especially red meat. This metabolite has proatherogenic and prothrombotic effects, and negatively affected cardiac remodeling in a mouse heart failure model, the review notes.

However, though it is too early to make specific dietary recommendations based on these findings, Dr. Mamic points out that a high-fiber diet is thought to be beneficial.

“Nutritional research is very hard to do and the data is limited, but as best as we can summarize things, we know that plant-based diets such as the Mediterranean and DASH diets seem to prevent some of the risk factors for the development of heart failure and seem to slow the progression of heart failure,” she added.

One of the major recommendations in these diets is a high intake of fiber, including whole foods, vegetables, fruits, legumes, and nuts, and less intake of processed food and red meat. “In general, I think everyone should eat like that, but I specifically recommend a plant-based diet with a high amount of fiber to my heart failure patients,” Dr. Mamic said.
 

Large variation in microbiome composition

The review also explores the idea of personalization of diet or specific treatments dependent on an individual’s gut microbiome composition.

Dr. Mamic explains: “When we look at the microbiome composition between individuals, it is very different. There is very little overlap between individuals, even in people who are related. It seems to be more to do with the environment – people who are living together are more likely to have similarities in their microbiome. We are still trying to understand what drives these differences.”

It is thought that these differences may affect the response to a specific diet or medication. Dr. Mamic gives the example of fiber. “Not all bacteria can digest the same types of fiber, so not everyone responds in the same way to a high-fiber diet. That’s probably because of differences in their microbiome.”

Another example is the response to the heart failure drug digoxin, which is metabolized by one particular strain of bacteria in the gut. The toxicity or effectiveness of digoxin seems to be influenced by levels of this bacterial strain, and this again can be influenced by diet, Dr. Mamic says.
 

Manipulating the microbiome as a therapeutic strategy

Microbiome-targeting therapies may also become part of future treatment strategies for many conditions, including heart failure, the review authors say.

Probiotics (foods and dietary supplements that contain live microbes) interact with the gut microbiota to alter host physiology beneficially. Certain probiotics may specifically modulate processes dysregulated in heart failure, as was suggested in a rodent heart failure model in which supplementation with Lactobacillus-containing and Bifidobacterium-containing probiotics resulted in markedly improved cardiac function, the authors report.

However, a randomized trial (GutHeart) of probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii in patients with heart failure found no improvement in cardiac function, compared with standard care.

Commenting on this, Dr. Mamic suggested that a more specific approach may be needed.

“Some of our preliminary data have shown people who have heart failure have severely depleted Bifidobacteria,” Dr. Mamic said. These bacteria are commercially available as a probiotic, and the researchers are planning a study to give patients with heart failure these specific probiotics. “We are trying to find practical ways forward and to be guided by the data. These people have very little Bifidobacteria, and we know that probiotics seem to be accepted best by the host where there is a specific need for them, so this seems like a sensible approach.”

Dr. Mamic does not recommend that heart failure patients take general probiotic products at present, but she tells her patients about the study she is doing. “Probiotics are quite different from each other. It is a very unregulated market. A general probiotic product may not contain the specific bacteria needed.”
 

Include microbiome data in biobanks

The review calls for more research on the subject and a more systematic approach to collecting data on the microbiome.

“At present for medical research, blood samples are collected, stored, and analyzed routinely. I think we should also be collecting stool samples in the same way to analyze the microbiome,” Dr. Mamic suggests.

“If we can combine that with data from blood tests on various metabolites/cytokines and look at how the microbiome changes over time or with medication, or with diet, and how the host responds including clinically relevant data, that would be really important. Given how quickly the field is growing I would think there would be biobanks including the microbiome in a few years’ time.”

“We need to gather this data. We would be looking for which bacteria are there, what their functionality is, how it changes over time, with diet or medication, and even whether we can use the microbiome data to predict who will respond to a specific drug.”

Dr. Mamic believes that in the future, analysis of the microbiome could be a routine part of deciding what people eat for good health and to characterize patients for personalized therapies.

“It is clear that the microbiome can influence health, and a dysregulated microbiome negatively affects the host, but there is lot of work to do. We need to learn a lot more about it, but we shouldn’t miss the opportunity to do this,” she concluded.

Dr. Mamic reported no disclosures.

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

Understanding more about the gut microbiome and how it may affect the development and treatment of heart failure could lead to a more personalized approach to managing the condition, a new review article suggests.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“The gut microbiome modulates heart failure pathophysiology, contributes to disease progression and therapeutic responses, and holds promise as a novel biomarker,” the authors note. “Interactions among the gut microbiome, diet, and medications offer potentially innovative modalities for management of patients with heart failure,” they add.

The review was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Over the past years we have gathered more understanding about how important the gut microbiome is in relation to how our bodies function overall and even though the cardiovascular system and the heart itself may appear to be quite distant from the gut, we know the gut microbiome affects the cardiovascular system and the physiology of heart failure,” lead author Petra Mamic, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

“We’ve also learnt that the microbiome is very personalized. It seems to be affected by a lot of intrinsic and as well as extrinsic factors. For cardiovascular diseases in particular, we always knew that diet and lifestyle were part of the environmental risk, and we now believe that the gut microbiome may be one of the factors that mediates that risk,” she said.

“Studies on the gut microbiome are difficult to do and we are right at the beginning of this type of research. But we have learned that the microbiome is altered or dysregulated in many diseases including many cardiovascular diseases, and many of the changes in the microbiome we see in different cardiovascular diseases seem to overlap,” she added.

Dr. Mamic explained that patients with heart failure have a microbiome that appears different and dysregulated, compared with the microbiome in healthy individuals.

“The difficulty is teasing out whether the microbiome changes are causing heart failure or if they are a consequence of the heart failure and all the medications and comorbidities associated with heart failure,” she commented.

Animal studies have shown that many microbial products, small molecules made by the microbiome, seem to affect how the heart recovers from injury, for example after a myocardial infarction, and how much the heart scars and hypertrophies after an injury, Dr. Mamic reported. These microbiome-derived small molecules can also affect blood pressure, which is dysregulated in heart failure.

Other products of the microbiome can be pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory, which can again affect the cardiovascular physiology and the heart, she noted.
 

High-fiber diet may be beneficial

One area of particular interest at present involves the role of short-chain fatty acids, which are a byproduct of microbes in the gut that digest fiber.

“These short chain fatty acids seem to have positive effects on the host physiology. They are anti-inflammatory; they lower blood pressure; and they seem to protect the heart from scarring and hypertrophy after injury. In heart failure, the gut microbes that make these short-chain fatty acids are significantly depleted,” Dr. Mamic explained.

They are an obvious focus of interest because these short-chain fatty acids are produced when gut bacteria break down dietary fiber, raising the possibility of beneficial effects from eating a high-fiber diet.

Another product of the gut microbiome of interest is trimethylamine N-oxide, formed when gut bacteria break down nutrients such as L-carnitine and phosphatidyl choline, nutrients abundant in foods of animal origin, especially red meat. This metabolite has proatherogenic and prothrombotic effects, and negatively affected cardiac remodeling in a mouse heart failure model, the review notes.

However, though it is too early to make specific dietary recommendations based on these findings, Dr. Mamic points out that a high-fiber diet is thought to be beneficial.

“Nutritional research is very hard to do and the data is limited, but as best as we can summarize things, we know that plant-based diets such as the Mediterranean and DASH diets seem to prevent some of the risk factors for the development of heart failure and seem to slow the progression of heart failure,” she added.

One of the major recommendations in these diets is a high intake of fiber, including whole foods, vegetables, fruits, legumes, and nuts, and less intake of processed food and red meat. “In general, I think everyone should eat like that, but I specifically recommend a plant-based diet with a high amount of fiber to my heart failure patients,” Dr. Mamic said.
 

Large variation in microbiome composition

The review also explores the idea of personalization of diet or specific treatments dependent on an individual’s gut microbiome composition.

Dr. Mamic explains: “When we look at the microbiome composition between individuals, it is very different. There is very little overlap between individuals, even in people who are related. It seems to be more to do with the environment – people who are living together are more likely to have similarities in their microbiome. We are still trying to understand what drives these differences.”

It is thought that these differences may affect the response to a specific diet or medication. Dr. Mamic gives the example of fiber. “Not all bacteria can digest the same types of fiber, so not everyone responds in the same way to a high-fiber diet. That’s probably because of differences in their microbiome.”

Another example is the response to the heart failure drug digoxin, which is metabolized by one particular strain of bacteria in the gut. The toxicity or effectiveness of digoxin seems to be influenced by levels of this bacterial strain, and this again can be influenced by diet, Dr. Mamic says.
 

Manipulating the microbiome as a therapeutic strategy

Microbiome-targeting therapies may also become part of future treatment strategies for many conditions, including heart failure, the review authors say.

Probiotics (foods and dietary supplements that contain live microbes) interact with the gut microbiota to alter host physiology beneficially. Certain probiotics may specifically modulate processes dysregulated in heart failure, as was suggested in a rodent heart failure model in which supplementation with Lactobacillus-containing and Bifidobacterium-containing probiotics resulted in markedly improved cardiac function, the authors report.

However, a randomized trial (GutHeart) of probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii in patients with heart failure found no improvement in cardiac function, compared with standard care.

Commenting on this, Dr. Mamic suggested that a more specific approach may be needed.

“Some of our preliminary data have shown people who have heart failure have severely depleted Bifidobacteria,” Dr. Mamic said. These bacteria are commercially available as a probiotic, and the researchers are planning a study to give patients with heart failure these specific probiotics. “We are trying to find practical ways forward and to be guided by the data. These people have very little Bifidobacteria, and we know that probiotics seem to be accepted best by the host where there is a specific need for them, so this seems like a sensible approach.”

Dr. Mamic does not recommend that heart failure patients take general probiotic products at present, but she tells her patients about the study she is doing. “Probiotics are quite different from each other. It is a very unregulated market. A general probiotic product may not contain the specific bacteria needed.”
 

Include microbiome data in biobanks

The review calls for more research on the subject and a more systematic approach to collecting data on the microbiome.

“At present for medical research, blood samples are collected, stored, and analyzed routinely. I think we should also be collecting stool samples in the same way to analyze the microbiome,” Dr. Mamic suggests.

“If we can combine that with data from blood tests on various metabolites/cytokines and look at how the microbiome changes over time or with medication, or with diet, and how the host responds including clinically relevant data, that would be really important. Given how quickly the field is growing I would think there would be biobanks including the microbiome in a few years’ time.”

“We need to gather this data. We would be looking for which bacteria are there, what their functionality is, how it changes over time, with diet or medication, and even whether we can use the microbiome data to predict who will respond to a specific drug.”

Dr. Mamic believes that in the future, analysis of the microbiome could be a routine part of deciding what people eat for good health and to characterize patients for personalized therapies.

“It is clear that the microbiome can influence health, and a dysregulated microbiome negatively affects the host, but there is lot of work to do. We need to learn a lot more about it, but we shouldn’t miss the opportunity to do this,” she concluded.

Dr. Mamic reported no disclosures.

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

Understanding more about the gut microbiome and how it may affect the development and treatment of heart failure could lead to a more personalized approach to managing the condition, a new review article suggests.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

“The gut microbiome modulates heart failure pathophysiology, contributes to disease progression and therapeutic responses, and holds promise as a novel biomarker,” the authors note. “Interactions among the gut microbiome, diet, and medications offer potentially innovative modalities for management of patients with heart failure,” they add.

The review was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Over the past years we have gathered more understanding about how important the gut microbiome is in relation to how our bodies function overall and even though the cardiovascular system and the heart itself may appear to be quite distant from the gut, we know the gut microbiome affects the cardiovascular system and the physiology of heart failure,” lead author Petra Mamic, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

“We’ve also learnt that the microbiome is very personalized. It seems to be affected by a lot of intrinsic and as well as extrinsic factors. For cardiovascular diseases in particular, we always knew that diet and lifestyle were part of the environmental risk, and we now believe that the gut microbiome may be one of the factors that mediates that risk,” she said.

“Studies on the gut microbiome are difficult to do and we are right at the beginning of this type of research. But we have learned that the microbiome is altered or dysregulated in many diseases including many cardiovascular diseases, and many of the changes in the microbiome we see in different cardiovascular diseases seem to overlap,” she added.

Dr. Mamic explained that patients with heart failure have a microbiome that appears different and dysregulated, compared with the microbiome in healthy individuals.

“The difficulty is teasing out whether the microbiome changes are causing heart failure or if they are a consequence of the heart failure and all the medications and comorbidities associated with heart failure,” she commented.

Animal studies have shown that many microbial products, small molecules made by the microbiome, seem to affect how the heart recovers from injury, for example after a myocardial infarction, and how much the heart scars and hypertrophies after an injury, Dr. Mamic reported. These microbiome-derived small molecules can also affect blood pressure, which is dysregulated in heart failure.

Other products of the microbiome can be pro-inflammatory or anti-inflammatory, which can again affect the cardiovascular physiology and the heart, she noted.
 

High-fiber diet may be beneficial

One area of particular interest at present involves the role of short-chain fatty acids, which are a byproduct of microbes in the gut that digest fiber.

“These short chain fatty acids seem to have positive effects on the host physiology. They are anti-inflammatory; they lower blood pressure; and they seem to protect the heart from scarring and hypertrophy after injury. In heart failure, the gut microbes that make these short-chain fatty acids are significantly depleted,” Dr. Mamic explained.

They are an obvious focus of interest because these short-chain fatty acids are produced when gut bacteria break down dietary fiber, raising the possibility of beneficial effects from eating a high-fiber diet.

Another product of the gut microbiome of interest is trimethylamine N-oxide, formed when gut bacteria break down nutrients such as L-carnitine and phosphatidyl choline, nutrients abundant in foods of animal origin, especially red meat. This metabolite has proatherogenic and prothrombotic effects, and negatively affected cardiac remodeling in a mouse heart failure model, the review notes.

However, though it is too early to make specific dietary recommendations based on these findings, Dr. Mamic points out that a high-fiber diet is thought to be beneficial.

“Nutritional research is very hard to do and the data is limited, but as best as we can summarize things, we know that plant-based diets such as the Mediterranean and DASH diets seem to prevent some of the risk factors for the development of heart failure and seem to slow the progression of heart failure,” she added.

One of the major recommendations in these diets is a high intake of fiber, including whole foods, vegetables, fruits, legumes, and nuts, and less intake of processed food and red meat. “In general, I think everyone should eat like that, but I specifically recommend a plant-based diet with a high amount of fiber to my heart failure patients,” Dr. Mamic said.
 

Large variation in microbiome composition

The review also explores the idea of personalization of diet or specific treatments dependent on an individual’s gut microbiome composition.

Dr. Mamic explains: “When we look at the microbiome composition between individuals, it is very different. There is very little overlap between individuals, even in people who are related. It seems to be more to do with the environment – people who are living together are more likely to have similarities in their microbiome. We are still trying to understand what drives these differences.”

It is thought that these differences may affect the response to a specific diet or medication. Dr. Mamic gives the example of fiber. “Not all bacteria can digest the same types of fiber, so not everyone responds in the same way to a high-fiber diet. That’s probably because of differences in their microbiome.”

Another example is the response to the heart failure drug digoxin, which is metabolized by one particular strain of bacteria in the gut. The toxicity or effectiveness of digoxin seems to be influenced by levels of this bacterial strain, and this again can be influenced by diet, Dr. Mamic says.
 

Manipulating the microbiome as a therapeutic strategy

Microbiome-targeting therapies may also become part of future treatment strategies for many conditions, including heart failure, the review authors say.

Probiotics (foods and dietary supplements that contain live microbes) interact with the gut microbiota to alter host physiology beneficially. Certain probiotics may specifically modulate processes dysregulated in heart failure, as was suggested in a rodent heart failure model in which supplementation with Lactobacillus-containing and Bifidobacterium-containing probiotics resulted in markedly improved cardiac function, the authors report.

However, a randomized trial (GutHeart) of probiotic yeast Saccharomyces boulardii in patients with heart failure found no improvement in cardiac function, compared with standard care.

Commenting on this, Dr. Mamic suggested that a more specific approach may be needed.

“Some of our preliminary data have shown people who have heart failure have severely depleted Bifidobacteria,” Dr. Mamic said. These bacteria are commercially available as a probiotic, and the researchers are planning a study to give patients with heart failure these specific probiotics. “We are trying to find practical ways forward and to be guided by the data. These people have very little Bifidobacteria, and we know that probiotics seem to be accepted best by the host where there is a specific need for them, so this seems like a sensible approach.”

Dr. Mamic does not recommend that heart failure patients take general probiotic products at present, but she tells her patients about the study she is doing. “Probiotics are quite different from each other. It is a very unregulated market. A general probiotic product may not contain the specific bacteria needed.”
 

Include microbiome data in biobanks

The review calls for more research on the subject and a more systematic approach to collecting data on the microbiome.

“At present for medical research, blood samples are collected, stored, and analyzed routinely. I think we should also be collecting stool samples in the same way to analyze the microbiome,” Dr. Mamic suggests.

“If we can combine that with data from blood tests on various metabolites/cytokines and look at how the microbiome changes over time or with medication, or with diet, and how the host responds including clinically relevant data, that would be really important. Given how quickly the field is growing I would think there would be biobanks including the microbiome in a few years’ time.”

“We need to gather this data. We would be looking for which bacteria are there, what their functionality is, how it changes over time, with diet or medication, and even whether we can use the microbiome data to predict who will respond to a specific drug.”

Dr. Mamic believes that in the future, analysis of the microbiome could be a routine part of deciding what people eat for good health and to characterize patients for personalized therapies.

“It is clear that the microbiome can influence health, and a dysregulated microbiome negatively affects the host, but there is lot of work to do. We need to learn a lot more about it, but we shouldn’t miss the opportunity to do this,” she concluded.

Dr. Mamic reported no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Despite the high prevalence of hypertension in the United States, confusion and gaps about how to diagnose and manage it remain, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

In a major shift in the definition of hypertension, guidelines published in 2017 reclassified 130/80 mm Hg as high blood pressure, or stage 1 hypertension. Previous guidelines classified 130/80 mm Hg as elevated, and 140/90 mm Hg used to be the threshold for stage 1 hypertension.

“This shift in classification criteria may cause confusion among clinicians caring for patients with hypertension and has a significant impact on how we diagnose and manage hypertension in our practice,” said Shawna D. Nesbitt, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and medical director at Parkland Hypertension Clinic in Dallas. Dr. Nesbitt is an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, particularly complex and refractory cases.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for nearly one-quarter of all deaths in men and in women. Hypertension is a key factor contributing to CVD. The hypertension‐related CVD mortality is currently on the rise in many U.S. demographic groups, including younger individuals (35-64 years old), she said.

When asked about the potential causes of this trend, Dr. Nesbitt explained that the epidemics of obesity and overweight are critical contributors to the high prevalence of hypertension.

The new definition means a wider gap in the prevalence of hypertension between men and women, as well as between Black and White people in the United States. The U.S. rates of hypertension and hypertension‐related CVD mortality are much higher in Black than in White people in this country. Hypertension control rates are the lowest in Black, Hispanic, and Asian males, Dr. Nesbitt said.
 

Accurate measurement of blood pressure is crucial

The changes in classification criteria for hypertension have made accurate measurements of blood pressure important. A key challenge in the evaluation of hypertension in the clinic is the difference in the methods used to measure blood pressure between trials and real-world clinical practice.

“We can’t easily translate data collected in clinical trials into real-life scenarios, and this can have important implications in our expectations of treatment outcome,” Dr. Nesbitt cautioned.

Commenting on the best practices in blood pressure measurements in the office, Dr. Nesbitt said that patients need to be seated with their feet on the floor and their backs and arms supported. In addition, patients need to have at least 5 minutes of rest without talking.

“It is very important to help patients understand what triggers their blood pressure to be elevated and teach them how and when to measure their blood pressure at home using their own devices,” she added.

Another critical question is how to translate the new guidelines into changes in clinical care, she said.
 

Current treatment landscape of hypertension

Ensuring a healthy diet, weight, and sleep, participating in physical activity, avoiding nicotine, and managing blood pressure, cholesterol, and sugar levels are the new “Life’s Essential 8” strategies proposed by the American Heart Association (AHA) to reduce CVD risk.

“Sleep has recently been added to the AHA guidelines because it modulates many factors contributing to hypertension,” Dr. Nesbitt pointed out. She advised that clinicians should ask patients about their sleep and educate them on healthy sleeping habits.

Some of the evidence used to develop the new AHA guidelines is derived from the SPRINT trial, which showed that controlling blood pressure reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. “This is our ultimate goal for our patients with hypertension,” Dr. Nesbitt noted.

Regarding the best practice in hypertension management, Dr. Nesbitt explained that with the new blood pressure thresholds, more patients will be diagnosed with stage 1 hypertension and need the nonpharmacological therapy suggested by the AHA. But patients with stage 1 hypertension and with a high CVD risk (at least  10%) also should receive blood pressure-lowering medications, so an accurate assessment of the risk of clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or the estimated 10-year CVD risk is crucial. “If we are not careful, we might miss some patients who need to be treated,” she said.

Calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, and ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are the treatment of choice for patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. Although extensively used in the past, beta-blockers are no longer a first-line treatment for hypertension.

When asked why beta-blockers are no longer suitable for routine initial treatment of hypertension, Dr. Nesbitt said that they are effective in controlling palpitations but “other antihypertensive drugs have proven far better in controlling blood pressure.”

Hypertension is multifactorial and often occurs in combination with other conditions, including diabetes and chronic kidney disease. When developing a treatment plan for patients with hypertension, comorbidities need to be considered, because their management may also help control blood pressure, especially for conditions that may contribute to the development of hypertension.

Common conditions that contribute to and often coexist with hypertension include sleep apnea, obesity, anxiety, and depression. However, convincing people to seek mental health support can be very challenging, Dr. Nesbitt said.

She added that hypertension is a complex disease with a strong social component. Understanding its pathophysiology and social determinants is paramount for successfully managing hypertension at the individual level, as well as at the community level.
 

Identification and management of side effects is key

Dr. Nesbitt also discussed the importance of the identification and management of side effects associated with blood pressure-lowering drugs. She cautioned that, if not managed, side effects can lead to treatment nonadherence and pseudo‐resistance, both of which can jeopardize the successful management of hypertension.

When asked about her approach to managing side effects and convincing patients to continue taking their medications, Dr. Nesbitt noted that “setting realistic expectations and goals is key.”

In an interview after Dr. Nesbitt’s presentation, Jesica Naanous, MD, agreed that having an honest conversation with the patients is the best way to convince them to keep taking their medications. She also explains to patients that the complications of uncontrolled blood pressure are worse than the side effects of the drugs.

“As a last resort, I change a blood pressure-lowering agent to another,” added Dr. Naanous, an internist at the American British Cowdray (ABC) Medical Center in Mexico City. She explained that many antihypertensive drugs have different toxicity profiles, and simply changing to another agent can make treatment more tolerable for the patient.

Dr. Nesbitt reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing health care products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO – Despite the high prevalence of hypertension in the United States, confusion and gaps about how to diagnose and manage it remain, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

In a major shift in the definition of hypertension, guidelines published in 2017 reclassified 130/80 mm Hg as high blood pressure, or stage 1 hypertension. Previous guidelines classified 130/80 mm Hg as elevated, and 140/90 mm Hg used to be the threshold for stage 1 hypertension.

“This shift in classification criteria may cause confusion among clinicians caring for patients with hypertension and has a significant impact on how we diagnose and manage hypertension in our practice,” said Shawna D. Nesbitt, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and medical director at Parkland Hypertension Clinic in Dallas. Dr. Nesbitt is an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, particularly complex and refractory cases.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for nearly one-quarter of all deaths in men and in women. Hypertension is a key factor contributing to CVD. The hypertension‐related CVD mortality is currently on the rise in many U.S. demographic groups, including younger individuals (35-64 years old), she said.

When asked about the potential causes of this trend, Dr. Nesbitt explained that the epidemics of obesity and overweight are critical contributors to the high prevalence of hypertension.

The new definition means a wider gap in the prevalence of hypertension between men and women, as well as between Black and White people in the United States. The U.S. rates of hypertension and hypertension‐related CVD mortality are much higher in Black than in White people in this country. Hypertension control rates are the lowest in Black, Hispanic, and Asian males, Dr. Nesbitt said.
 

Accurate measurement of blood pressure is crucial

The changes in classification criteria for hypertension have made accurate measurements of blood pressure important. A key challenge in the evaluation of hypertension in the clinic is the difference in the methods used to measure blood pressure between trials and real-world clinical practice.

“We can’t easily translate data collected in clinical trials into real-life scenarios, and this can have important implications in our expectations of treatment outcome,” Dr. Nesbitt cautioned.

Commenting on the best practices in blood pressure measurements in the office, Dr. Nesbitt said that patients need to be seated with their feet on the floor and their backs and arms supported. In addition, patients need to have at least 5 minutes of rest without talking.

“It is very important to help patients understand what triggers their blood pressure to be elevated and teach them how and when to measure their blood pressure at home using their own devices,” she added.

Another critical question is how to translate the new guidelines into changes in clinical care, she said.
 

Current treatment landscape of hypertension

Ensuring a healthy diet, weight, and sleep, participating in physical activity, avoiding nicotine, and managing blood pressure, cholesterol, and sugar levels are the new “Life’s Essential 8” strategies proposed by the American Heart Association (AHA) to reduce CVD risk.

“Sleep has recently been added to the AHA guidelines because it modulates many factors contributing to hypertension,” Dr. Nesbitt pointed out. She advised that clinicians should ask patients about their sleep and educate them on healthy sleeping habits.

Some of the evidence used to develop the new AHA guidelines is derived from the SPRINT trial, which showed that controlling blood pressure reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. “This is our ultimate goal for our patients with hypertension,” Dr. Nesbitt noted.

Regarding the best practice in hypertension management, Dr. Nesbitt explained that with the new blood pressure thresholds, more patients will be diagnosed with stage 1 hypertension and need the nonpharmacological therapy suggested by the AHA. But patients with stage 1 hypertension and with a high CVD risk (at least  10%) also should receive blood pressure-lowering medications, so an accurate assessment of the risk of clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or the estimated 10-year CVD risk is crucial. “If we are not careful, we might miss some patients who need to be treated,” she said.

Calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, and ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are the treatment of choice for patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. Although extensively used in the past, beta-blockers are no longer a first-line treatment for hypertension.

When asked why beta-blockers are no longer suitable for routine initial treatment of hypertension, Dr. Nesbitt said that they are effective in controlling palpitations but “other antihypertensive drugs have proven far better in controlling blood pressure.”

Hypertension is multifactorial and often occurs in combination with other conditions, including diabetes and chronic kidney disease. When developing a treatment plan for patients with hypertension, comorbidities need to be considered, because their management may also help control blood pressure, especially for conditions that may contribute to the development of hypertension.

Common conditions that contribute to and often coexist with hypertension include sleep apnea, obesity, anxiety, and depression. However, convincing people to seek mental health support can be very challenging, Dr. Nesbitt said.

She added that hypertension is a complex disease with a strong social component. Understanding its pathophysiology and social determinants is paramount for successfully managing hypertension at the individual level, as well as at the community level.
 

Identification and management of side effects is key

Dr. Nesbitt also discussed the importance of the identification and management of side effects associated with blood pressure-lowering drugs. She cautioned that, if not managed, side effects can lead to treatment nonadherence and pseudo‐resistance, both of which can jeopardize the successful management of hypertension.

When asked about her approach to managing side effects and convincing patients to continue taking their medications, Dr. Nesbitt noted that “setting realistic expectations and goals is key.”

In an interview after Dr. Nesbitt’s presentation, Jesica Naanous, MD, agreed that having an honest conversation with the patients is the best way to convince them to keep taking their medications. She also explains to patients that the complications of uncontrolled blood pressure are worse than the side effects of the drugs.

“As a last resort, I change a blood pressure-lowering agent to another,” added Dr. Naanous, an internist at the American British Cowdray (ABC) Medical Center in Mexico City. She explained that many antihypertensive drugs have different toxicity profiles, and simply changing to another agent can make treatment more tolerable for the patient.

Dr. Nesbitt reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing health care products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO – Despite the high prevalence of hypertension in the United States, confusion and gaps about how to diagnose and manage it remain, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

In a major shift in the definition of hypertension, guidelines published in 2017 reclassified 130/80 mm Hg as high blood pressure, or stage 1 hypertension. Previous guidelines classified 130/80 mm Hg as elevated, and 140/90 mm Hg used to be the threshold for stage 1 hypertension.

“This shift in classification criteria may cause confusion among clinicians caring for patients with hypertension and has a significant impact on how we diagnose and manage hypertension in our practice,” said Shawna D. Nesbitt, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and medical director at Parkland Hypertension Clinic in Dallas. Dr. Nesbitt is an expert in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, particularly complex and refractory cases.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for nearly one-quarter of all deaths in men and in women. Hypertension is a key factor contributing to CVD. The hypertension‐related CVD mortality is currently on the rise in many U.S. demographic groups, including younger individuals (35-64 years old), she said.

When asked about the potential causes of this trend, Dr. Nesbitt explained that the epidemics of obesity and overweight are critical contributors to the high prevalence of hypertension.

The new definition means a wider gap in the prevalence of hypertension between men and women, as well as between Black and White people in the United States. The U.S. rates of hypertension and hypertension‐related CVD mortality are much higher in Black than in White people in this country. Hypertension control rates are the lowest in Black, Hispanic, and Asian males, Dr. Nesbitt said.
 

Accurate measurement of blood pressure is crucial

The changes in classification criteria for hypertension have made accurate measurements of blood pressure important. A key challenge in the evaluation of hypertension in the clinic is the difference in the methods used to measure blood pressure between trials and real-world clinical practice.

“We can’t easily translate data collected in clinical trials into real-life scenarios, and this can have important implications in our expectations of treatment outcome,” Dr. Nesbitt cautioned.

Commenting on the best practices in blood pressure measurements in the office, Dr. Nesbitt said that patients need to be seated with their feet on the floor and their backs and arms supported. In addition, patients need to have at least 5 minutes of rest without talking.

“It is very important to help patients understand what triggers their blood pressure to be elevated and teach them how and when to measure their blood pressure at home using their own devices,” she added.

Another critical question is how to translate the new guidelines into changes in clinical care, she said.
 

Current treatment landscape of hypertension

Ensuring a healthy diet, weight, and sleep, participating in physical activity, avoiding nicotine, and managing blood pressure, cholesterol, and sugar levels are the new “Life’s Essential 8” strategies proposed by the American Heart Association (AHA) to reduce CVD risk.

“Sleep has recently been added to the AHA guidelines because it modulates many factors contributing to hypertension,” Dr. Nesbitt pointed out. She advised that clinicians should ask patients about their sleep and educate them on healthy sleeping habits.

Some of the evidence used to develop the new AHA guidelines is derived from the SPRINT trial, which showed that controlling blood pressure reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. “This is our ultimate goal for our patients with hypertension,” Dr. Nesbitt noted.

Regarding the best practice in hypertension management, Dr. Nesbitt explained that with the new blood pressure thresholds, more patients will be diagnosed with stage 1 hypertension and need the nonpharmacological therapy suggested by the AHA. But patients with stage 1 hypertension and with a high CVD risk (at least  10%) also should receive blood pressure-lowering medications, so an accurate assessment of the risk of clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or the estimated 10-year CVD risk is crucial. “If we are not careful, we might miss some patients who need to be treated,” she said.

Calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, and ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are the treatment of choice for patients with newly diagnosed hypertension. Although extensively used in the past, beta-blockers are no longer a first-line treatment for hypertension.

When asked why beta-blockers are no longer suitable for routine initial treatment of hypertension, Dr. Nesbitt said that they are effective in controlling palpitations but “other antihypertensive drugs have proven far better in controlling blood pressure.”

Hypertension is multifactorial and often occurs in combination with other conditions, including diabetes and chronic kidney disease. When developing a treatment plan for patients with hypertension, comorbidities need to be considered, because their management may also help control blood pressure, especially for conditions that may contribute to the development of hypertension.

Common conditions that contribute to and often coexist with hypertension include sleep apnea, obesity, anxiety, and depression. However, convincing people to seek mental health support can be very challenging, Dr. Nesbitt said.

She added that hypertension is a complex disease with a strong social component. Understanding its pathophysiology and social determinants is paramount for successfully managing hypertension at the individual level, as well as at the community level.
 

Identification and management of side effects is key

Dr. Nesbitt also discussed the importance of the identification and management of side effects associated with blood pressure-lowering drugs. She cautioned that, if not managed, side effects can lead to treatment nonadherence and pseudo‐resistance, both of which can jeopardize the successful management of hypertension.

When asked about her approach to managing side effects and convincing patients to continue taking their medications, Dr. Nesbitt noted that “setting realistic expectations and goals is key.”

In an interview after Dr. Nesbitt’s presentation, Jesica Naanous, MD, agreed that having an honest conversation with the patients is the best way to convince them to keep taking their medications. She also explains to patients that the complications of uncontrolled blood pressure are worse than the side effects of the drugs.

“As a last resort, I change a blood pressure-lowering agent to another,” added Dr. Naanous, an internist at the American British Cowdray (ABC) Medical Center in Mexico City. She explained that many antihypertensive drugs have different toxicity profiles, and simply changing to another agent can make treatment more tolerable for the patient.

Dr. Nesbitt reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing health care products used by or on patients.

An investigational outpatient endoscopic procedure may help eliminate the need for insulin in people with type 2 diabetes, early research suggests.

Called recellularization via electroporation therapy (ReCET), the technology, manufactured by Endogenex, uses a specialized catheter to deliver alternating electric pulses to the duodenum to induce cellular regeneration. This process is thought to improve insulin sensitivity, in part, by altering gut hormones and nutritional sensing, principal investigator Jacques Bergman, MD, PhD, said in a press briefing held in conjunction with the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), where he will present the data on May 9.

In the first-in-human study of ReCET, 12 of 14 patients were able to come off insulin for up to a year following the procedure when combined with the use of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide.

“This might be a game changer in the management of type 2 diabetes because a single outpatient endoscopic intervention was suggested to have a pretty long therapeutic effect, which is compliance-free, as opposed to drug therapy that relies on patients taking the drugs on a daily basis,” said Dr. Bergman, professor of gastrointestinal endoscopy at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Moreover, he added, “this technique is disease-modifying, so it goes to the root cause of type 2 diabetes and tackles the insulin resistance, as opposed to drug therapy, which at best, is disease-controlling, and the effect is immediately gone if you stop the medication.”

ReCET is similar to another product, Fractyl’s Revita DMR, for which Dr. Bergman was involved in a randomized clinical trial. He said in an interview that the two technologies differ in that the Revita uses heat with submucosal lifting to avoid deeper heat penetration, whereas ReCET is nonthermal. He is also involved in a second randomized trial of the Revita.
 

Is semaglutide muddying the findings?

Asked to comment about the current study with ReCET, Ali Aminian, MD, professor of surgery and director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said that the treatment effect is certainly plausible.

“The observation that hyperglycemia rapidly and substantially improves after bariatric surgery has prompted innovators to search for novel endoscopic procedures targeting the GI tract to improve diabetes and metabolic disease. Over the years, we learned that in addition to its role in digestion and absorption, the GI tract is actually a large endocrine organ which contributes to development of diabetes and metabolic disease.”

However, Dr. Aminian said that, “while these preliminary findings on a very small number of patients with a very short follow-up time are interesting,” he faulted the study design for including semaglutide. “When patients are treated with a combination of therapies, it will be hard to understand the true effect of each therapy,” and particularly, “when we add a strong diabetes medication like semaglutide.”

Dr. Bergman said semaglutide was used to “boost the insulin-resistant effect of the endoscopic treatment,” and that a planned double-blind, randomized trial will “show how much semaglutide actually contributed to the effect.” The ultimate goal, he noted, is to eliminate the need for all medications.

Moreover, when people with type 2 diabetes add semaglutide to insulin treatment, only about 20% typically are able to quit taking the insulin, in contrast to the 86% seen in this study, lead author Celine Busch, MBBS, a PhD candidate in gastroenterology at Amsterdam University, said in a DDW statement.

Dr. Aminian said, “I’m looking forward to better quality data ... from studies with a stronger design to prove safety, efficacy, and durability of this endoscopic intervention in patients with diabetes.”

But, he also cautioned, “in the past few years, other endoscopic procedures targeting the duodenum were introduced with exciting initial findings based on a small series [with a] short-term follow-up time. However, their safety, efficacy, and durability were not proven in subsequent studies.”
 

All patients stopped insulin, most for a year

The single-arm, single-center study involved 14 patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal but not premeal insulin. All underwent the 1-hour outpatient ReCET procedure, which involved placing a catheter into the first part of the small bowel and delivering electrical pulses to the duodenum.

Patients adhered to a calorie-controlled liquid diet for 2 weeks, after which they were initiated on semaglutide. All 14 patients were able to come off insulin for 3 months while maintaining glycemic control, and 12 were able to come off insulin for 12 months. They also experienced a 50% reduction in liver fat.

Dr. Bergman said a randomized, double-blind study using a sham procedure for controls is expected to start in about 2 months. “But for now, we are very encouraged by the potential for controlling type 2 diabetes with a single endoscopic treatment.”

Dr. Bergman has reported serving on the advisory board for Endogenex. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving research support and honorarium from Medtronic and Ethicon.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

An investigational outpatient endoscopic procedure may help eliminate the need for insulin in people with type 2 diabetes, early research suggests.

Called recellularization via electroporation therapy (ReCET), the technology, manufactured by Endogenex, uses a specialized catheter to deliver alternating electric pulses to the duodenum to induce cellular regeneration. This process is thought to improve insulin sensitivity, in part, by altering gut hormones and nutritional sensing, principal investigator Jacques Bergman, MD, PhD, said in a press briefing held in conjunction with the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), where he will present the data on May 9.

In the first-in-human study of ReCET, 12 of 14 patients were able to come off insulin for up to a year following the procedure when combined with the use of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide.

“This might be a game changer in the management of type 2 diabetes because a single outpatient endoscopic intervention was suggested to have a pretty long therapeutic effect, which is compliance-free, as opposed to drug therapy that relies on patients taking the drugs on a daily basis,” said Dr. Bergman, professor of gastrointestinal endoscopy at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Moreover, he added, “this technique is disease-modifying, so it goes to the root cause of type 2 diabetes and tackles the insulin resistance, as opposed to drug therapy, which at best, is disease-controlling, and the effect is immediately gone if you stop the medication.”

ReCET is similar to another product, Fractyl’s Revita DMR, for which Dr. Bergman was involved in a randomized clinical trial. He said in an interview that the two technologies differ in that the Revita uses heat with submucosal lifting to avoid deeper heat penetration, whereas ReCET is nonthermal. He is also involved in a second randomized trial of the Revita.
 

Is semaglutide muddying the findings?

Asked to comment about the current study with ReCET, Ali Aminian, MD, professor of surgery and director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said that the treatment effect is certainly plausible.

“The observation that hyperglycemia rapidly and substantially improves after bariatric surgery has prompted innovators to search for novel endoscopic procedures targeting the GI tract to improve diabetes and metabolic disease. Over the years, we learned that in addition to its role in digestion and absorption, the GI tract is actually a large endocrine organ which contributes to development of diabetes and metabolic disease.”

However, Dr. Aminian said that, “while these preliminary findings on a very small number of patients with a very short follow-up time are interesting,” he faulted the study design for including semaglutide. “When patients are treated with a combination of therapies, it will be hard to understand the true effect of each therapy,” and particularly, “when we add a strong diabetes medication like semaglutide.”

Dr. Bergman said semaglutide was used to “boost the insulin-resistant effect of the endoscopic treatment,” and that a planned double-blind, randomized trial will “show how much semaglutide actually contributed to the effect.” The ultimate goal, he noted, is to eliminate the need for all medications.

Moreover, when people with type 2 diabetes add semaglutide to insulin treatment, only about 20% typically are able to quit taking the insulin, in contrast to the 86% seen in this study, lead author Celine Busch, MBBS, a PhD candidate in gastroenterology at Amsterdam University, said in a DDW statement.

Dr. Aminian said, “I’m looking forward to better quality data ... from studies with a stronger design to prove safety, efficacy, and durability of this endoscopic intervention in patients with diabetes.”

But, he also cautioned, “in the past few years, other endoscopic procedures targeting the duodenum were introduced with exciting initial findings based on a small series [with a] short-term follow-up time. However, their safety, efficacy, and durability were not proven in subsequent studies.”
 

All patients stopped insulin, most for a year

The single-arm, single-center study involved 14 patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal but not premeal insulin. All underwent the 1-hour outpatient ReCET procedure, which involved placing a catheter into the first part of the small bowel and delivering electrical pulses to the duodenum.

Patients adhered to a calorie-controlled liquid diet for 2 weeks, after which they were initiated on semaglutide. All 14 patients were able to come off insulin for 3 months while maintaining glycemic control, and 12 were able to come off insulin for 12 months. They also experienced a 50% reduction in liver fat.

Dr. Bergman said a randomized, double-blind study using a sham procedure for controls is expected to start in about 2 months. “But for now, we are very encouraged by the potential for controlling type 2 diabetes with a single endoscopic treatment.”

Dr. Bergman has reported serving on the advisory board for Endogenex. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving research support and honorarium from Medtronic and Ethicon.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

An investigational outpatient endoscopic procedure may help eliminate the need for insulin in people with type 2 diabetes, early research suggests.

Called recellularization via electroporation therapy (ReCET), the technology, manufactured by Endogenex, uses a specialized catheter to deliver alternating electric pulses to the duodenum to induce cellular regeneration. This process is thought to improve insulin sensitivity, in part, by altering gut hormones and nutritional sensing, principal investigator Jacques Bergman, MD, PhD, said in a press briefing held in conjunction with the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), where he will present the data on May 9.

In the first-in-human study of ReCET, 12 of 14 patients were able to come off insulin for up to a year following the procedure when combined with the use of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide.

“This might be a game changer in the management of type 2 diabetes because a single outpatient endoscopic intervention was suggested to have a pretty long therapeutic effect, which is compliance-free, as opposed to drug therapy that relies on patients taking the drugs on a daily basis,” said Dr. Bergman, professor of gastrointestinal endoscopy at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Moreover, he added, “this technique is disease-modifying, so it goes to the root cause of type 2 diabetes and tackles the insulin resistance, as opposed to drug therapy, which at best, is disease-controlling, and the effect is immediately gone if you stop the medication.”

ReCET is similar to another product, Fractyl’s Revita DMR, for which Dr. Bergman was involved in a randomized clinical trial. He said in an interview that the two technologies differ in that the Revita uses heat with submucosal lifting to avoid deeper heat penetration, whereas ReCET is nonthermal. He is also involved in a second randomized trial of the Revita.
 

Is semaglutide muddying the findings?

Asked to comment about the current study with ReCET, Ali Aminian, MD, professor of surgery and director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said that the treatment effect is certainly plausible.

“The observation that hyperglycemia rapidly and substantially improves after bariatric surgery has prompted innovators to search for novel endoscopic procedures targeting the GI tract to improve diabetes and metabolic disease. Over the years, we learned that in addition to its role in digestion and absorption, the GI tract is actually a large endocrine organ which contributes to development of diabetes and metabolic disease.”

However, Dr. Aminian said that, “while these preliminary findings on a very small number of patients with a very short follow-up time are interesting,” he faulted the study design for including semaglutide. “When patients are treated with a combination of therapies, it will be hard to understand the true effect of each therapy,” and particularly, “when we add a strong diabetes medication like semaglutide.”

Dr. Bergman said semaglutide was used to “boost the insulin-resistant effect of the endoscopic treatment,” and that a planned double-blind, randomized trial will “show how much semaglutide actually contributed to the effect.” The ultimate goal, he noted, is to eliminate the need for all medications.

Moreover, when people with type 2 diabetes add semaglutide to insulin treatment, only about 20% typically are able to quit taking the insulin, in contrast to the 86% seen in this study, lead author Celine Busch, MBBS, a PhD candidate in gastroenterology at Amsterdam University, said in a DDW statement.

Dr. Aminian said, “I’m looking forward to better quality data ... from studies with a stronger design to prove safety, efficacy, and durability of this endoscopic intervention in patients with diabetes.”

But, he also cautioned, “in the past few years, other endoscopic procedures targeting the duodenum were introduced with exciting initial findings based on a small series [with a] short-term follow-up time. However, their safety, efficacy, and durability were not proven in subsequent studies.”
 

All patients stopped insulin, most for a year

The single-arm, single-center study involved 14 patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal but not premeal insulin. All underwent the 1-hour outpatient ReCET procedure, which involved placing a catheter into the first part of the small bowel and delivering electrical pulses to the duodenum.

Patients adhered to a calorie-controlled liquid diet for 2 weeks, after which they were initiated on semaglutide. All 14 patients were able to come off insulin for 3 months while maintaining glycemic control, and 12 were able to come off insulin for 12 months. They also experienced a 50% reduction in liver fat.

Dr. Bergman said a randomized, double-blind study using a sham procedure for controls is expected to start in about 2 months. “But for now, we are very encouraged by the potential for controlling type 2 diabetes with a single endoscopic treatment.”

Dr. Bergman has reported serving on the advisory board for Endogenex. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving research support and honorarium from Medtronic and Ethicon.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

A new study shows that people with long COVID respond differently to COVID vaccines and that the condition may be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system – possibly explaining why some people experience symptoms for months while others recover and resume normal lives. 

The study compared people who already had long COVID with people who had recovered from the virus. Both groups had not yet been vaccinated prior to the study. When researchers analyzed blood samples after people received an initial vaccine dose, they found that people with long COVID and people who had already recovered from the virus had similar immune responses at first. But after 8 weeks, the long-COVID group’s immune response remained elevated, while the other group’s response had declined.

The long-COVID group also showed an extra immune response that tried to fight the virus in a secondary way that researchers didn’t expect. Both groups showed an initial increase in their blood of antibodies that primarily target what’s known as the “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which allows the virus to invade healthy cells. But the long-COVID group also showed a prolonged increased immune response that tried to fight the part of the virus related to how it replicates.

“Theoretically, the production of these antibodies could mean that people are more protected from infection,” said researcher Catherine Le, MD, in a statement. “We also need to investigate if the elevated immune response corresponds with severity or number of long–COVID-19 symptoms.”

Dr. Le is codirector of the COVID-19 Recovery Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where the study was conducted.

Study participants agreed in September 2020 to participate in long-term COVID research at Cedars-Sinai. The new analysis was published earlier this year in BMC Infectious Diseases and included 245 people who had long COVID and 86 health care workers who had recovered from COVID but did not have long-term symptoms. 

For the study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms that lasted more than 12 weeks. Common long-COVID symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain dysfunction such as confusion and forgetfulness.

The authors said it’s unclear why the two groups had different immune responses and also noted that their study was limited by a small sample size. Their research of blood samples is ongoing, with the goals of identifying a way to diagnose long COVID with a laboratory test and of better understanding what causes the condition.

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

A new study shows that people with long COVID respond differently to COVID vaccines and that the condition may be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system – possibly explaining why some people experience symptoms for months while others recover and resume normal lives. 

The study compared people who already had long COVID with people who had recovered from the virus. Both groups had not yet been vaccinated prior to the study. When researchers analyzed blood samples after people received an initial vaccine dose, they found that people with long COVID and people who had already recovered from the virus had similar immune responses at first. But after 8 weeks, the long-COVID group’s immune response remained elevated, while the other group’s response had declined.

The long-COVID group also showed an extra immune response that tried to fight the virus in a secondary way that researchers didn’t expect. Both groups showed an initial increase in their blood of antibodies that primarily target what’s known as the “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which allows the virus to invade healthy cells. But the long-COVID group also showed a prolonged increased immune response that tried to fight the part of the virus related to how it replicates.

“Theoretically, the production of these antibodies could mean that people are more protected from infection,” said researcher Catherine Le, MD, in a statement. “We also need to investigate if the elevated immune response corresponds with severity or number of long–COVID-19 symptoms.”

Dr. Le is codirector of the COVID-19 Recovery Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where the study was conducted.

Study participants agreed in September 2020 to participate in long-term COVID research at Cedars-Sinai. The new analysis was published earlier this year in BMC Infectious Diseases and included 245 people who had long COVID and 86 health care workers who had recovered from COVID but did not have long-term symptoms. 

For the study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms that lasted more than 12 weeks. Common long-COVID symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain dysfunction such as confusion and forgetfulness.

The authors said it’s unclear why the two groups had different immune responses and also noted that their study was limited by a small sample size. Their research of blood samples is ongoing, with the goals of identifying a way to diagnose long COVID with a laboratory test and of better understanding what causes the condition.

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

A new study shows that people with long COVID respond differently to COVID vaccines and that the condition may be caused by a dysfunction of the immune system – possibly explaining why some people experience symptoms for months while others recover and resume normal lives. 

The study compared people who already had long COVID with people who had recovered from the virus. Both groups had not yet been vaccinated prior to the study. When researchers analyzed blood samples after people received an initial vaccine dose, they found that people with long COVID and people who had already recovered from the virus had similar immune responses at first. But after 8 weeks, the long-COVID group’s immune response remained elevated, while the other group’s response had declined.

The long-COVID group also showed an extra immune response that tried to fight the virus in a secondary way that researchers didn’t expect. Both groups showed an initial increase in their blood of antibodies that primarily target what’s known as the “spike” protein of the coronavirus, which allows the virus to invade healthy cells. But the long-COVID group also showed a prolonged increased immune response that tried to fight the part of the virus related to how it replicates.

“Theoretically, the production of these antibodies could mean that people are more protected from infection,” said researcher Catherine Le, MD, in a statement. “We also need to investigate if the elevated immune response corresponds with severity or number of long–COVID-19 symptoms.”

Dr. Le is codirector of the COVID-19 Recovery Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, where the study was conducted.

Study participants agreed in September 2020 to participate in long-term COVID research at Cedars-Sinai. The new analysis was published earlier this year in BMC Infectious Diseases and included 245 people who had long COVID and 86 health care workers who had recovered from COVID but did not have long-term symptoms. 

For the study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms that lasted more than 12 weeks. Common long-COVID symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, and brain dysfunction such as confusion and forgetfulness.

The authors said it’s unclear why the two groups had different immune responses and also noted that their study was limited by a small sample size. Their research of blood samples is ongoing, with the goals of identifying a way to diagnose long COVID with a laboratory test and of better understanding what causes the condition.

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

In the United States, type 2 diabetes (T2D) more commonly affects people older than 40 years, but it is most prevalent among adults over age 65, affecting more than 29% of this population. The heterogeneity in the health and functional status of older adults presents a challenge in the management and treatment of older patients with T2D. Moreover, there is an increased risk for health-related comorbidities and complications from diabetes treatment (for example, hypoglycemia) in older adults. Physiologic changes, such as decreased renal function, cognitive decline, and sarcopenia, may lead to an increased risk for adverse reactions to medications and require an individualized treatment approach. Although there have been a limited number of randomized controlled studies targeting older adults with multiple comorbidities and poor health status, subanalyses of diabetes trials with a subpopulation of older adults have provided additional evidence to better guide therapeutic approaches in caring for older patients with T2D.

Here’s a guide to developing personalized therapeutic regimens for older patients with T2D using lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, and diabetes technology.
 

Determining an optimal glycemic target

An important first step in diabetes treatment is to determine the optimal glycemic target for patients. Although data support intensive glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c < 7%) to prevent complications from diabetes in younger patients with recently diagnosed disease, the data are less compelling in trials involving older populations with longer durations of T2D. One observational study with 71,092 older adults over age 60 reported a U-shaped correlation between A1c and mortality, with higher risks for mortality in those with A1c levels < 6% and ≥ 11%, compared with those with A1c levels of 6%-9%. Risks for any diabetes complications were higher at an A1c level ≥ 8%. Another observational study reported a U-shaped association between A1c and mortality, with the lowest hazard ratio for mortality at an A1c level of about 7.5%. Similarly, the ACCORD trial, which included older and middle-aged patients with T2D who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, found that mortality followed a U-shaped curve at the low (A1c < 7%) and high (A1c > 8%) ends in patients who were given standard glycemic therapy. Hence, there has been a general trend to recommend less strict glycemic control in older adults.

However, it is important to remember that older patients with T2D are a heterogeneous group. The spectrum includes adults with recent-onset diabetes with no or few complications, those with long-standing diabetes and many complications, and frail older adults with multiple comorbidities and complications. Determining the optimal glycemic target for an older patient with T2D requires assessment not only of the patient’s medical status and comorbidities but also functional status, cognitive and psychological health, social situation, individual preferences, and life expectancy. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes provides the following guidance in determining the optimal glycemic control for older adults:

• Healthy adults with few coexisting chronic illnesses and intact cognitive and functional status should have an A1c level < 7.0%-7.5%.
• Adults with complex or intermediate comorbidities (multiple coexisting chronic illnesses, or two or more instrumental activities of daily living impairments, or mild to moderate cognitive impairment) should have an A1c level < 8.0%.
• Patients with poor health (long-term care or end-stage chronic illnesses or moderate to severe cognitive impairment or two or more activities of daily living impairments) should avoid reliance on A1c, and the goal is to avoid hypoglycemia and symptomatic hyperglycemia.

Because older patients are at a higher risk for complications and adverse effects from polypharmacy, regular assessments are recommended and treatment plans should be routinely reviewed and modified to avoid overtreatment.
 

Lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy

Lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, optimal nutrition, and protein intake, are integral in treating older patients with T2D. Older adults should engage in regular exercise (that is, aerobic activity, weight-bearing exercise, or resistance training), and the activity should be customized to frailty status. Regular exercise improves insulin sensitivity and glucose control, enhances functional status, and provides cardiometabolic benefits. Optimal nutrition and adequate protein intake are also important to prevent the development or worsening of sarcopenia and frailty.

Several factors must be considered when choosing pharmacotherapy for T2D treatment in older adults. These patients are at higher risk for adverse reactions to medications that can trigger hypoglycemia and serious cardiovascular events, and worsen cognitive function. Therefore, side effects should always be reviewed when choosing antidiabetic drugs. The complexity of treatment plans needs to be matched with the patients’ self-management abilities and available social support. Medication costs and insurance coverage should be considered because many older adults live on a fixed income. Although limited, data exist on the safety and efficacy of some glucose-lowering agents in older adults, which can provide guidance for choosing the optimal therapy for these patients.

Among the insulin sensitizers, metformin is most commonly used because of its efficacy, low risk for hypoglycemia, and affordability. Metformin can be safely used in the setting of reduced renal function down to the estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². However, metformin should be avoided in patients with more advanced renal disease, liver failure, or heart failure. In older patients with T2D, potential concerns of metformin include gastrointestinal side effects, leading to reduced appetite, mild weight loss, and risk for vitamin B12 deficiency.

Pioglitazone, an oral antidiabetic in the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class, also targets insulin resistance and may provide some cardiovascular benefits. However, these agents are not commonly used in treating older patients with T2D owing to associated risk for edema, heart failure, osteoporosis/fractures, and bladder cancer.

Sulfonylureas and meglitinides are insulin secretagogues, which can promote insulin release independent of glucose levels. Sulfonylureas are typically avoided in older patients because they are associated with high risk for hypoglycemia. Meglitinides have a lower hypoglycemia risk than sulfonylureas because of their short duration of action; however, they are more expensive and require multiple daily administration, which can lead to issues with adherence.

Since 2008, there have been numerous cardiovascular outcomes trials assessing the safety and efficacy of T2D therapies that included a subpopulation of older patients either with cardiovascular disease or at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Post hoc analysis of data from these trials and smaller studies dedicated to older adults demonstrated the safety and efficacy of most incretin-based therapies and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in these patients. These newer medications have low hypoglycemia risk if not used in combination with insulin or insulin secretagogues.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have the mildest side effect profile. However, they can be expensive and not reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and one agent, saxagliptin, has been associated with increased risk for heart failure hospitalization. Some glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular deaths, stroke, and myocardial infarction) in patients older and younger than age 65. However, the gastrointestinal side effects and weight loss associated with this medication can be problematic for older patients. Most of the GLP-1 receptor agonists are injectables, which require good visual, motor, and cognitive skills for administration. SGLT2 inhibitors offer benefits for patients with T2D who have established cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, with possible greater cardiovascular benefits in older adults. Adverse effects associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, such as weight loss, volume depletion, urinary incontinence, and genitourinary infections, may be a concern in older patients with T2D who are using these medications.

Because the insulin-secreting capacity of the pancreas declines with age, insulin therapy may be required for treatment of T2D in older patients. Insulin therapy can be complex and consideration must be given to patients’ social circumstances, as well as their physical and cognitive abilities. Older adults may need adaptive strategies, such as additional lighting, magnification glass, and premixed syringes. Simplification of complex insulin therapy (discontinuation of prandial insulin or sliding scale, changing timing of basal insulin) and use of insulin analogs with lower hypoglycemia risks should be considered. Weight gain as a result of insulin therapy may be beneficial in older adults with sarcopenia or frailty.
 

T2D technology for glycemic improvement

There have been major technological advancements in diabetes therapy. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin delivery systems can improve glycemic control, decrease the rate of hypoglycemia, and enhance the quality of life of older patients. Most of the studies evaluating the use of automated insulin delivery systems in older patients have focused on those with type 1 diabetes and demonstrated improvement in glycemic control and/or reduced hypoglycemia. The DIAMOND trial demonstrated improved A1c and reduced glycemic variability with the use of CGM in adults older than 60 years with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. Bluetooth-enabled “smart” insulin pens, which record the time and dose of insulin administrations, can also be a great asset in caring for older patients, especially those with cognitive impairment. With better insurance coverage, diabetes technologies may become more accessible and an asset in treating older patients with T2D.

In conclusion, management of T2D in older adults requires an individualized approach because of the heterogeneity in their health and functional status. Because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in older patients with T2D, treatment plans should also address frequently coexisting cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Clinicians should consider patients’ overall health, comorbidities, cognitive and functional status, social support systems, preferences, and life expectancy when developing individualized therapeutic plans.

Dr. Gunawan is an assistant professor in the department of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the United States, type 2 diabetes (T2D) more commonly affects people older than 40 years, but it is most prevalent among adults over age 65, affecting more than 29% of this population. The heterogeneity in the health and functional status of older adults presents a challenge in the management and treatment of older patients with T2D. Moreover, there is an increased risk for health-related comorbidities and complications from diabetes treatment (for example, hypoglycemia) in older adults. Physiologic changes, such as decreased renal function, cognitive decline, and sarcopenia, may lead to an increased risk for adverse reactions to medications and require an individualized treatment approach. Although there have been a limited number of randomized controlled studies targeting older adults with multiple comorbidities and poor health status, subanalyses of diabetes trials with a subpopulation of older adults have provided additional evidence to better guide therapeutic approaches in caring for older patients with T2D.

Here’s a guide to developing personalized therapeutic regimens for older patients with T2D using lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, and diabetes technology.
 

Determining an optimal glycemic target

An important first step in diabetes treatment is to determine the optimal glycemic target for patients. Although data support intensive glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c < 7%) to prevent complications from diabetes in younger patients with recently diagnosed disease, the data are less compelling in trials involving older populations with longer durations of T2D. One observational study with 71,092 older adults over age 60 reported a U-shaped correlation between A1c and mortality, with higher risks for mortality in those with A1c levels < 6% and ≥ 11%, compared with those with A1c levels of 6%-9%. Risks for any diabetes complications were higher at an A1c level ≥ 8%. Another observational study reported a U-shaped association between A1c and mortality, with the lowest hazard ratio for mortality at an A1c level of about 7.5%. Similarly, the ACCORD trial, which included older and middle-aged patients with T2D who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, found that mortality followed a U-shaped curve at the low (A1c < 7%) and high (A1c > 8%) ends in patients who were given standard glycemic therapy. Hence, there has been a general trend to recommend less strict glycemic control in older adults.

However, it is important to remember that older patients with T2D are a heterogeneous group. The spectrum includes adults with recent-onset diabetes with no or few complications, those with long-standing diabetes and many complications, and frail older adults with multiple comorbidities and complications. Determining the optimal glycemic target for an older patient with T2D requires assessment not only of the patient’s medical status and comorbidities but also functional status, cognitive and psychological health, social situation, individual preferences, and life expectancy. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes provides the following guidance in determining the optimal glycemic control for older adults:

• Healthy adults with few coexisting chronic illnesses and intact cognitive and functional status should have an A1c level < 7.0%-7.5%.
• Adults with complex or intermediate comorbidities (multiple coexisting chronic illnesses, or two or more instrumental activities of daily living impairments, or mild to moderate cognitive impairment) should have an A1c level < 8.0%.
• Patients with poor health (long-term care or end-stage chronic illnesses or moderate to severe cognitive impairment or two or more activities of daily living impairments) should avoid reliance on A1c, and the goal is to avoid hypoglycemia and symptomatic hyperglycemia.

Because older patients are at a higher risk for complications and adverse effects from polypharmacy, regular assessments are recommended and treatment plans should be routinely reviewed and modified to avoid overtreatment.
 

Lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy

Lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, optimal nutrition, and protein intake, are integral in treating older patients with T2D. Older adults should engage in regular exercise (that is, aerobic activity, weight-bearing exercise, or resistance training), and the activity should be customized to frailty status. Regular exercise improves insulin sensitivity and glucose control, enhances functional status, and provides cardiometabolic benefits. Optimal nutrition and adequate protein intake are also important to prevent the development or worsening of sarcopenia and frailty.

Several factors must be considered when choosing pharmacotherapy for T2D treatment in older adults. These patients are at higher risk for adverse reactions to medications that can trigger hypoglycemia and serious cardiovascular events, and worsen cognitive function. Therefore, side effects should always be reviewed when choosing antidiabetic drugs. The complexity of treatment plans needs to be matched with the patients’ self-management abilities and available social support. Medication costs and insurance coverage should be considered because many older adults live on a fixed income. Although limited, data exist on the safety and efficacy of some glucose-lowering agents in older adults, which can provide guidance for choosing the optimal therapy for these patients.

Among the insulin sensitizers, metformin is most commonly used because of its efficacy, low risk for hypoglycemia, and affordability. Metformin can be safely used in the setting of reduced renal function down to the estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². However, metformin should be avoided in patients with more advanced renal disease, liver failure, or heart failure. In older patients with T2D, potential concerns of metformin include gastrointestinal side effects, leading to reduced appetite, mild weight loss, and risk for vitamin B12 deficiency.

Pioglitazone, an oral antidiabetic in the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class, also targets insulin resistance and may provide some cardiovascular benefits. However, these agents are not commonly used in treating older patients with T2D owing to associated risk for edema, heart failure, osteoporosis/fractures, and bladder cancer.

Sulfonylureas and meglitinides are insulin secretagogues, which can promote insulin release independent of glucose levels. Sulfonylureas are typically avoided in older patients because they are associated with high risk for hypoglycemia. Meglitinides have a lower hypoglycemia risk than sulfonylureas because of their short duration of action; however, they are more expensive and require multiple daily administration, which can lead to issues with adherence.

Since 2008, there have been numerous cardiovascular outcomes trials assessing the safety and efficacy of T2D therapies that included a subpopulation of older patients either with cardiovascular disease or at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Post hoc analysis of data from these trials and smaller studies dedicated to older adults demonstrated the safety and efficacy of most incretin-based therapies and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in these patients. These newer medications have low hypoglycemia risk if not used in combination with insulin or insulin secretagogues.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have the mildest side effect profile. However, they can be expensive and not reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and one agent, saxagliptin, has been associated with increased risk for heart failure hospitalization. Some glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular deaths, stroke, and myocardial infarction) in patients older and younger than age 65. However, the gastrointestinal side effects and weight loss associated with this medication can be problematic for older patients. Most of the GLP-1 receptor agonists are injectables, which require good visual, motor, and cognitive skills for administration. SGLT2 inhibitors offer benefits for patients with T2D who have established cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, with possible greater cardiovascular benefits in older adults. Adverse effects associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, such as weight loss, volume depletion, urinary incontinence, and genitourinary infections, may be a concern in older patients with T2D who are using these medications.

Because the insulin-secreting capacity of the pancreas declines with age, insulin therapy may be required for treatment of T2D in older patients. Insulin therapy can be complex and consideration must be given to patients’ social circumstances, as well as their physical and cognitive abilities. Older adults may need adaptive strategies, such as additional lighting, magnification glass, and premixed syringes. Simplification of complex insulin therapy (discontinuation of prandial insulin or sliding scale, changing timing of basal insulin) and use of insulin analogs with lower hypoglycemia risks should be considered. Weight gain as a result of insulin therapy may be beneficial in older adults with sarcopenia or frailty.
 

T2D technology for glycemic improvement

There have been major technological advancements in diabetes therapy. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin delivery systems can improve glycemic control, decrease the rate of hypoglycemia, and enhance the quality of life of older patients. Most of the studies evaluating the use of automated insulin delivery systems in older patients have focused on those with type 1 diabetes and demonstrated improvement in glycemic control and/or reduced hypoglycemia. The DIAMOND trial demonstrated improved A1c and reduced glycemic variability with the use of CGM in adults older than 60 years with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. Bluetooth-enabled “smart” insulin pens, which record the time and dose of insulin administrations, can also be a great asset in caring for older patients, especially those with cognitive impairment. With better insurance coverage, diabetes technologies may become more accessible and an asset in treating older patients with T2D.

In conclusion, management of T2D in older adults requires an individualized approach because of the heterogeneity in their health and functional status. Because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in older patients with T2D, treatment plans should also address frequently coexisting cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Clinicians should consider patients’ overall health, comorbidities, cognitive and functional status, social support systems, preferences, and life expectancy when developing individualized therapeutic plans.

Dr. Gunawan is an assistant professor in the department of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the United States, type 2 diabetes (T2D) more commonly affects people older than 40 years, but it is most prevalent among adults over age 65, affecting more than 29% of this population. The heterogeneity in the health and functional status of older adults presents a challenge in the management and treatment of older patients with T2D. Moreover, there is an increased risk for health-related comorbidities and complications from diabetes treatment (for example, hypoglycemia) in older adults. Physiologic changes, such as decreased renal function, cognitive decline, and sarcopenia, may lead to an increased risk for adverse reactions to medications and require an individualized treatment approach. Although there have been a limited number of randomized controlled studies targeting older adults with multiple comorbidities and poor health status, subanalyses of diabetes trials with a subpopulation of older adults have provided additional evidence to better guide therapeutic approaches in caring for older patients with T2D.

Here’s a guide to developing personalized therapeutic regimens for older patients with T2D using lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, and diabetes technology.
 

Determining an optimal glycemic target

An important first step in diabetes treatment is to determine the optimal glycemic target for patients. Although data support intensive glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c < 7%) to prevent complications from diabetes in younger patients with recently diagnosed disease, the data are less compelling in trials involving older populations with longer durations of T2D. One observational study with 71,092 older adults over age 60 reported a U-shaped correlation between A1c and mortality, with higher risks for mortality in those with A1c levels < 6% and ≥ 11%, compared with those with A1c levels of 6%-9%. Risks for any diabetes complications were higher at an A1c level ≥ 8%. Another observational study reported a U-shaped association between A1c and mortality, with the lowest hazard ratio for mortality at an A1c level of about 7.5%. Similarly, the ACCORD trial, which included older and middle-aged patients with T2D who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, found that mortality followed a U-shaped curve at the low (A1c < 7%) and high (A1c > 8%) ends in patients who were given standard glycemic therapy. Hence, there has been a general trend to recommend less strict glycemic control in older adults.

However, it is important to remember that older patients with T2D are a heterogeneous group. The spectrum includes adults with recent-onset diabetes with no or few complications, those with long-standing diabetes and many complications, and frail older adults with multiple comorbidities and complications. Determining the optimal glycemic target for an older patient with T2D requires assessment not only of the patient’s medical status and comorbidities but also functional status, cognitive and psychological health, social situation, individual preferences, and life expectancy. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes provides the following guidance in determining the optimal glycemic control for older adults:

• Healthy adults with few coexisting chronic illnesses and intact cognitive and functional status should have an A1c level < 7.0%-7.5%.
• Adults with complex or intermediate comorbidities (multiple coexisting chronic illnesses, or two or more instrumental activities of daily living impairments, or mild to moderate cognitive impairment) should have an A1c level < 8.0%.
• Patients with poor health (long-term care or end-stage chronic illnesses or moderate to severe cognitive impairment or two or more activities of daily living impairments) should avoid reliance on A1c, and the goal is to avoid hypoglycemia and symptomatic hyperglycemia.

Because older patients are at a higher risk for complications and adverse effects from polypharmacy, regular assessments are recommended and treatment plans should be routinely reviewed and modified to avoid overtreatment.
 

Lifestyle interventions and pharmacotherapy

Lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, optimal nutrition, and protein intake, are integral in treating older patients with T2D. Older adults should engage in regular exercise (that is, aerobic activity, weight-bearing exercise, or resistance training), and the activity should be customized to frailty status. Regular exercise improves insulin sensitivity and glucose control, enhances functional status, and provides cardiometabolic benefits. Optimal nutrition and adequate protein intake are also important to prevent the development or worsening of sarcopenia and frailty.

Several factors must be considered when choosing pharmacotherapy for T2D treatment in older adults. These patients are at higher risk for adverse reactions to medications that can trigger hypoglycemia and serious cardiovascular events, and worsen cognitive function. Therefore, side effects should always be reviewed when choosing antidiabetic drugs. The complexity of treatment plans needs to be matched with the patients’ self-management abilities and available social support. Medication costs and insurance coverage should be considered because many older adults live on a fixed income. Although limited, data exist on the safety and efficacy of some glucose-lowering agents in older adults, which can provide guidance for choosing the optimal therapy for these patients.

Among the insulin sensitizers, metformin is most commonly used because of its efficacy, low risk for hypoglycemia, and affordability. Metformin can be safely used in the setting of reduced renal function down to the estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². However, metformin should be avoided in patients with more advanced renal disease, liver failure, or heart failure. In older patients with T2D, potential concerns of metformin include gastrointestinal side effects, leading to reduced appetite, mild weight loss, and risk for vitamin B12 deficiency.

Pioglitazone, an oral antidiabetic in the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class, also targets insulin resistance and may provide some cardiovascular benefits. However, these agents are not commonly used in treating older patients with T2D owing to associated risk for edema, heart failure, osteoporosis/fractures, and bladder cancer.

Sulfonylureas and meglitinides are insulin secretagogues, which can promote insulin release independent of glucose levels. Sulfonylureas are typically avoided in older patients because they are associated with high risk for hypoglycemia. Meglitinides have a lower hypoglycemia risk than sulfonylureas because of their short duration of action; however, they are more expensive and require multiple daily administration, which can lead to issues with adherence.

Since 2008, there have been numerous cardiovascular outcomes trials assessing the safety and efficacy of T2D therapies that included a subpopulation of older patients either with cardiovascular disease or at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Post hoc analysis of data from these trials and smaller studies dedicated to older adults demonstrated the safety and efficacy of most incretin-based therapies and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in these patients. These newer medications have low hypoglycemia risk if not used in combination with insulin or insulin secretagogues.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have the mildest side effect profile. However, they can be expensive and not reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and one agent, saxagliptin, has been associated with increased risk for heart failure hospitalization. Some glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are effective in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular deaths, stroke, and myocardial infarction) in patients older and younger than age 65. However, the gastrointestinal side effects and weight loss associated with this medication can be problematic for older patients. Most of the GLP-1 receptor agonists are injectables, which require good visual, motor, and cognitive skills for administration. SGLT2 inhibitors offer benefits for patients with T2D who have established cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease, with possible greater cardiovascular benefits in older adults. Adverse effects associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, such as weight loss, volume depletion, urinary incontinence, and genitourinary infections, may be a concern in older patients with T2D who are using these medications.

Because the insulin-secreting capacity of the pancreas declines with age, insulin therapy may be required for treatment of T2D in older patients. Insulin therapy can be complex and consideration must be given to patients’ social circumstances, as well as their physical and cognitive abilities. Older adults may need adaptive strategies, such as additional lighting, magnification glass, and premixed syringes. Simplification of complex insulin therapy (discontinuation of prandial insulin or sliding scale, changing timing of basal insulin) and use of insulin analogs with lower hypoglycemia risks should be considered. Weight gain as a result of insulin therapy may be beneficial in older adults with sarcopenia or frailty.
 

T2D technology for glycemic improvement

There have been major technological advancements in diabetes therapy. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin delivery systems can improve glycemic control, decrease the rate of hypoglycemia, and enhance the quality of life of older patients. Most of the studies evaluating the use of automated insulin delivery systems in older patients have focused on those with type 1 diabetes and demonstrated improvement in glycemic control and/or reduced hypoglycemia. The DIAMOND trial demonstrated improved A1c and reduced glycemic variability with the use of CGM in adults older than 60 years with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes on multiple daily injections. Bluetooth-enabled “smart” insulin pens, which record the time and dose of insulin administrations, can also be a great asset in caring for older patients, especially those with cognitive impairment. With better insurance coverage, diabetes technologies may become more accessible and an asset in treating older patients with T2D.

In conclusion, management of T2D in older adults requires an individualized approach because of the heterogeneity in their health and functional status. Because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in older patients with T2D, treatment plans should also address frequently coexisting cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Clinicians should consider patients’ overall health, comorbidities, cognitive and functional status, social support systems, preferences, and life expectancy when developing individualized therapeutic plans.

Dr. Gunawan is an assistant professor in the department of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

MONTPELLIER, FRANCE – The first expert consensus on smoking and diabetes, coauthored by the Francophone Diabetes Society (SFD) and the French Society for the Study of Nicotine Addiction (SFT), was presented at the SFD’s annual conference.

Alexia Rouland, MD, an endocrinologist at Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France, took the conference as an opportunity to list the many benefits of smoking cessation for patients with diabetes, despite the “slight and temporary” risk for blood sugar imbalance.
 

Societies target smoking

Diabetes societies around Europe have set their sights on the topic of smoking. Indeed, the guidelines published in 2019 by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the European Society of Cardiology state that “smoking cessation is obligatory for all prediabetic and diabetic patients” (class I, level A).

This year, the France-based SFD and SFT dedicated an expert consensus to the major problem of smoking in patients with diabetes. The aim was to provide health care professionals with convincing, well-supported arguments in favor of smoking cessation in their patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

“Before anything else, diabetic patients need to be made aware of the risks of smoking,” said Dr. Rouland. “It’s not just about the fear factor, though. It’s also about providing a positive incentive – they need to be told about the ways they’ll benefit from quitting smoking. For example, you have all-cause mortality, macro- and microangiopathic complications, and so on.”
 

Duration of abstinence

“Diabetic patients who have stopped smoking have a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.28 (1.09-1.51), which is less than what you see in active smokers (relative risk = 1.58; 1.42-1.77), but still above that of nonsmokers,” said Dr. Rouland.

A previous study revealed that although the risk does indeed go down after stopping smoking, it is linked to how long ago the person stopped. Patients who stopped smoking less than 10 years ago still had a slightly raised all-cause mortality risk, and this was even higher if they had smoked for 20 years or more.

After 10 years of not smoking, however, the greater all-cause mortality risk was no longer significant in any of the groups monitored (smoking duration, number of cigarettes/day). Concrete evidence of the link between all-cause mortality and the length of time since a person stopped smoking also emerged from the large cohort in the American Nurses’ Health Study.

The relative risk for all-cause mortality in women who stopped smoking less than 5 years ago remained high (RR = 1.96, 1.47-2.67), then decreased over time. After 10 years, it was no longer significant (RR = 1.11, 0.92-1.35).
 

Macro- and microangiopathic risks

Smoking cessation also has a real benefit in terms of the increased macro- and microangiopathic risks. In type 2 diabetes, a study found an increased relative risk for macro- and microalbuminuria of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.52) in former smokers, compared with an increased relative risk of 2.61 (95% CI, 1.86-2.64) in current smokers.

In type 1 diabetes, the cumulative risk for microalbuminuria in former smokers was 15.1% vs. 18.9% in smokers and 10% in nonsmokers.

A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies determined that smoking is an independent risk factor for diabetic nephropathy, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Yet, most of the data for this condition come from subjects with type 2 diabetes. One publication estimated its prevalence after a 1-year follow-up of the smoking cessation program as 10.9% in former smokers and 15% in those who continued smoking.

In regard to macroangiopathy in the context of type 2 diabetes, the aforementioned 2019 meta-analysis focused on coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). It found that smokers face an increased risk for all these outcomes.

The relative risks wavered between 1.53 and 1.66 and decreased after smoking cessation. For coronary artery disease and MI, they became insignificant. There was still a risk for CVA (RR = 1.34; 1.07-1.67) and fatal cardiovascular events (RR = 1.19; 0.02-1.39).

The data are slightly more heterogeneous for type 1 diabetes, where, despite smoking cessation, the increased risk for heart failure and CVA persists in men, yet the same risk for coronary heart disease and CVA drops in women.
 

Risk for weight gain

Dr. Rouland tried to reassure patients about the risk for gaining weight. “Weight gain is not inevitable. There is a risk for this, but it’s temporary. And, even with some weight gain, the cardiovascular benefits are still indisputable.”

A study carried out in 2013 focused specifically on this point, with an average post-cessation weight gain of 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) seen in diabetic individuals in the first 4 years after stopping smoking and of 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) thereafter. A time-based effect was observed with regulation of excess weight post-cessation over time, as seen in the general population (3 kg [6.6 lb] on average in nondiabetic individuals).

Weight gain tends to occur mainly in the immediate post-cessation period, essentially in the first 3 months, and there is a large variation in weight change. Some people gain a lot (from 5 to 10 kg [11 to 22 lb], or even more than 10 kg); others lose weight (20% of diabetic former smokers in the first month, 7% after 12 months), and 25% gain less than 5 kg (11 lb).
 

Blood glucose imbalance

“A risk for blood glucose imbalance has been reported after smoking cessation, although this is very slight and only temporary,” said Dr. Rouland.

A British retrospective study examined this question, focusing on glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c increased by 0.21% (95% CI, 0.17-0.25; P < .001) within the first year after quitting. A1c decreased as abstinence continued and became comparable to that of continual smokers after 3 years. This increase in A1c was not mediated by weight change.

Another study published in 2018 on the topic of type 2 diabetes also reported on the risk for poor glycemic control (defined as A1c > 7%) persisting for 10 years after smoking cessation (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Thereafter, between 10 and 19 years post-cessation, the OR decreased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19, NS). Beyond 20 years post-cessation, the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89-1.44, NS) and was therefore no longer significant.

Regardless, “the risk for poor glycemic control is lower in quitters than in active smokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
 

Quitting and diabetes risk

Will a smoker’s increased risk for diabetes drop when he or she stops smoking? “This is essentially what happens,” Dr. Rouland confirmed, “and his or her increased risk for metabolic syndrome also drops. One meta-analysis revealed a time-based effect.

“Patients who had stopped smoking less than 5 years previously had an increased relative risk for type 2 diabetes, and this risk dropped to 1.11 after more than 10 years of not smoking. Moreover, this relative risk for type 2 diabetes remained lower than that of active smokers, at between 1.19 and 1.60, depending on tobacco use.”

In regard to the risk for metabolic syndrome, those who quit smoking seem to have an increased risk of 10%, compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.10, 1.08-1.11; P < .001). “But yet again, this increased risk is much lower than that of active smokers, whose risk is between 37% (less than 20 cigarettes/day) and 71% (more than 20 cigarettes/day).”
 

Women with diabetes

“The benefits of quitting appear identical, regardless of the sex of the diabetic person,” said Dr. Rouland. “As in the general population, weight gain after smoking cessation is greater in women. Furthermore, while smoking increases the risk for gestational diabetes (RR, 1.4-1.9) and for the use of insulin in this context, stopping smoking reduces these risks.

“Moreover, smoking during pregnancy not only increases the risk for pregnancy-related complications (early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, birth defects, placental abruption, premature birth, intrauterine fetal demise, cesarean birth, low birth weight), but it also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the newborn. The risk to the newborn is said to be around 34% in cases in which the mother smokes during pregnancy and 22% in cases in which the mother is a passive smoker, thereby justifying the use of measures to help the mother’s family members to stop smoking.”

Dr. Rouland reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTPELLIER, FRANCE – The first expert consensus on smoking and diabetes, coauthored by the Francophone Diabetes Society (SFD) and the French Society for the Study of Nicotine Addiction (SFT), was presented at the SFD’s annual conference.

Alexia Rouland, MD, an endocrinologist at Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France, took the conference as an opportunity to list the many benefits of smoking cessation for patients with diabetes, despite the “slight and temporary” risk for blood sugar imbalance.
 

Societies target smoking

Diabetes societies around Europe have set their sights on the topic of smoking. Indeed, the guidelines published in 2019 by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the European Society of Cardiology state that “smoking cessation is obligatory for all prediabetic and diabetic patients” (class I, level A).

This year, the France-based SFD and SFT dedicated an expert consensus to the major problem of smoking in patients with diabetes. The aim was to provide health care professionals with convincing, well-supported arguments in favor of smoking cessation in their patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

“Before anything else, diabetic patients need to be made aware of the risks of smoking,” said Dr. Rouland. “It’s not just about the fear factor, though. It’s also about providing a positive incentive – they need to be told about the ways they’ll benefit from quitting smoking. For example, you have all-cause mortality, macro- and microangiopathic complications, and so on.”
 

Duration of abstinence

“Diabetic patients who have stopped smoking have a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.28 (1.09-1.51), which is less than what you see in active smokers (relative risk = 1.58; 1.42-1.77), but still above that of nonsmokers,” said Dr. Rouland.

A previous study revealed that although the risk does indeed go down after stopping smoking, it is linked to how long ago the person stopped. Patients who stopped smoking less than 10 years ago still had a slightly raised all-cause mortality risk, and this was even higher if they had smoked for 20 years or more.

After 10 years of not smoking, however, the greater all-cause mortality risk was no longer significant in any of the groups monitored (smoking duration, number of cigarettes/day). Concrete evidence of the link between all-cause mortality and the length of time since a person stopped smoking also emerged from the large cohort in the American Nurses’ Health Study.

The relative risk for all-cause mortality in women who stopped smoking less than 5 years ago remained high (RR = 1.96, 1.47-2.67), then decreased over time. After 10 years, it was no longer significant (RR = 1.11, 0.92-1.35).
 

Macro- and microangiopathic risks

Smoking cessation also has a real benefit in terms of the increased macro- and microangiopathic risks. In type 2 diabetes, a study found an increased relative risk for macro- and microalbuminuria of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.52) in former smokers, compared with an increased relative risk of 2.61 (95% CI, 1.86-2.64) in current smokers.

In type 1 diabetes, the cumulative risk for microalbuminuria in former smokers was 15.1% vs. 18.9% in smokers and 10% in nonsmokers.

A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies determined that smoking is an independent risk factor for diabetic nephropathy, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Yet, most of the data for this condition come from subjects with type 2 diabetes. One publication estimated its prevalence after a 1-year follow-up of the smoking cessation program as 10.9% in former smokers and 15% in those who continued smoking.

In regard to macroangiopathy in the context of type 2 diabetes, the aforementioned 2019 meta-analysis focused on coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). It found that smokers face an increased risk for all these outcomes.

The relative risks wavered between 1.53 and 1.66 and decreased after smoking cessation. For coronary artery disease and MI, they became insignificant. There was still a risk for CVA (RR = 1.34; 1.07-1.67) and fatal cardiovascular events (RR = 1.19; 0.02-1.39).

The data are slightly more heterogeneous for type 1 diabetes, where, despite smoking cessation, the increased risk for heart failure and CVA persists in men, yet the same risk for coronary heart disease and CVA drops in women.
 

Risk for weight gain

Dr. Rouland tried to reassure patients about the risk for gaining weight. “Weight gain is not inevitable. There is a risk for this, but it’s temporary. And, even with some weight gain, the cardiovascular benefits are still indisputable.”

A study carried out in 2013 focused specifically on this point, with an average post-cessation weight gain of 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) seen in diabetic individuals in the first 4 years after stopping smoking and of 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) thereafter. A time-based effect was observed with regulation of excess weight post-cessation over time, as seen in the general population (3 kg [6.6 lb] on average in nondiabetic individuals).

Weight gain tends to occur mainly in the immediate post-cessation period, essentially in the first 3 months, and there is a large variation in weight change. Some people gain a lot (from 5 to 10 kg [11 to 22 lb], or even more than 10 kg); others lose weight (20% of diabetic former smokers in the first month, 7% after 12 months), and 25% gain less than 5 kg (11 lb).
 

Blood glucose imbalance

“A risk for blood glucose imbalance has been reported after smoking cessation, although this is very slight and only temporary,” said Dr. Rouland.

A British retrospective study examined this question, focusing on glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c increased by 0.21% (95% CI, 0.17-0.25; P < .001) within the first year after quitting. A1c decreased as abstinence continued and became comparable to that of continual smokers after 3 years. This increase in A1c was not mediated by weight change.

Another study published in 2018 on the topic of type 2 diabetes also reported on the risk for poor glycemic control (defined as A1c > 7%) persisting for 10 years after smoking cessation (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Thereafter, between 10 and 19 years post-cessation, the OR decreased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19, NS). Beyond 20 years post-cessation, the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89-1.44, NS) and was therefore no longer significant.

Regardless, “the risk for poor glycemic control is lower in quitters than in active smokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
 

Quitting and diabetes risk

Will a smoker’s increased risk for diabetes drop when he or she stops smoking? “This is essentially what happens,” Dr. Rouland confirmed, “and his or her increased risk for metabolic syndrome also drops. One meta-analysis revealed a time-based effect.

“Patients who had stopped smoking less than 5 years previously had an increased relative risk for type 2 diabetes, and this risk dropped to 1.11 after more than 10 years of not smoking. Moreover, this relative risk for type 2 diabetes remained lower than that of active smokers, at between 1.19 and 1.60, depending on tobacco use.”

In regard to the risk for metabolic syndrome, those who quit smoking seem to have an increased risk of 10%, compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.10, 1.08-1.11; P < .001). “But yet again, this increased risk is much lower than that of active smokers, whose risk is between 37% (less than 20 cigarettes/day) and 71% (more than 20 cigarettes/day).”
 

Women with diabetes

“The benefits of quitting appear identical, regardless of the sex of the diabetic person,” said Dr. Rouland. “As in the general population, weight gain after smoking cessation is greater in women. Furthermore, while smoking increases the risk for gestational diabetes (RR, 1.4-1.9) and for the use of insulin in this context, stopping smoking reduces these risks.

“Moreover, smoking during pregnancy not only increases the risk for pregnancy-related complications (early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, birth defects, placental abruption, premature birth, intrauterine fetal demise, cesarean birth, low birth weight), but it also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the newborn. The risk to the newborn is said to be around 34% in cases in which the mother smokes during pregnancy and 22% in cases in which the mother is a passive smoker, thereby justifying the use of measures to help the mother’s family members to stop smoking.”

Dr. Rouland reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTPELLIER, FRANCE – The first expert consensus on smoking and diabetes, coauthored by the Francophone Diabetes Society (SFD) and the French Society for the Study of Nicotine Addiction (SFT), was presented at the SFD’s annual conference.

Alexia Rouland, MD, an endocrinologist at Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France, took the conference as an opportunity to list the many benefits of smoking cessation for patients with diabetes, despite the “slight and temporary” risk for blood sugar imbalance.
 

Societies target smoking

Diabetes societies around Europe have set their sights on the topic of smoking. Indeed, the guidelines published in 2019 by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the European Society of Cardiology state that “smoking cessation is obligatory for all prediabetic and diabetic patients” (class I, level A).

This year, the France-based SFD and SFT dedicated an expert consensus to the major problem of smoking in patients with diabetes. The aim was to provide health care professionals with convincing, well-supported arguments in favor of smoking cessation in their patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

“Before anything else, diabetic patients need to be made aware of the risks of smoking,” said Dr. Rouland. “It’s not just about the fear factor, though. It’s also about providing a positive incentive – they need to be told about the ways they’ll benefit from quitting smoking. For example, you have all-cause mortality, macro- and microangiopathic complications, and so on.”
 

Duration of abstinence

“Diabetic patients who have stopped smoking have a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.28 (1.09-1.51), which is less than what you see in active smokers (relative risk = 1.58; 1.42-1.77), but still above that of nonsmokers,” said Dr. Rouland.

A previous study revealed that although the risk does indeed go down after stopping smoking, it is linked to how long ago the person stopped. Patients who stopped smoking less than 10 years ago still had a slightly raised all-cause mortality risk, and this was even higher if they had smoked for 20 years or more.

After 10 years of not smoking, however, the greater all-cause mortality risk was no longer significant in any of the groups monitored (smoking duration, number of cigarettes/day). Concrete evidence of the link between all-cause mortality and the length of time since a person stopped smoking also emerged from the large cohort in the American Nurses’ Health Study.

The relative risk for all-cause mortality in women who stopped smoking less than 5 years ago remained high (RR = 1.96, 1.47-2.67), then decreased over time. After 10 years, it was no longer significant (RR = 1.11, 0.92-1.35).
 

Macro- and microangiopathic risks

Smoking cessation also has a real benefit in terms of the increased macro- and microangiopathic risks. In type 2 diabetes, a study found an increased relative risk for macro- and microalbuminuria of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.52) in former smokers, compared with an increased relative risk of 2.61 (95% CI, 1.86-2.64) in current smokers.

In type 1 diabetes, the cumulative risk for microalbuminuria in former smokers was 15.1% vs. 18.9% in smokers and 10% in nonsmokers.

A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies determined that smoking is an independent risk factor for diabetic nephropathy, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Yet, most of the data for this condition come from subjects with type 2 diabetes. One publication estimated its prevalence after a 1-year follow-up of the smoking cessation program as 10.9% in former smokers and 15% in those who continued smoking.

In regard to macroangiopathy in the context of type 2 diabetes, the aforementioned 2019 meta-analysis focused on coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). It found that smokers face an increased risk for all these outcomes.

The relative risks wavered between 1.53 and 1.66 and decreased after smoking cessation. For coronary artery disease and MI, they became insignificant. There was still a risk for CVA (RR = 1.34; 1.07-1.67) and fatal cardiovascular events (RR = 1.19; 0.02-1.39).

The data are slightly more heterogeneous for type 1 diabetes, where, despite smoking cessation, the increased risk for heart failure and CVA persists in men, yet the same risk for coronary heart disease and CVA drops in women.
 

Risk for weight gain

Dr. Rouland tried to reassure patients about the risk for gaining weight. “Weight gain is not inevitable. There is a risk for this, but it’s temporary. And, even with some weight gain, the cardiovascular benefits are still indisputable.”

A study carried out in 2013 focused specifically on this point, with an average post-cessation weight gain of 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) seen in diabetic individuals in the first 4 years after stopping smoking and of 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) thereafter. A time-based effect was observed with regulation of excess weight post-cessation over time, as seen in the general population (3 kg [6.6 lb] on average in nondiabetic individuals).

Weight gain tends to occur mainly in the immediate post-cessation period, essentially in the first 3 months, and there is a large variation in weight change. Some people gain a lot (from 5 to 10 kg [11 to 22 lb], or even more than 10 kg); others lose weight (20% of diabetic former smokers in the first month, 7% after 12 months), and 25% gain less than 5 kg (11 lb).
 

Blood glucose imbalance

“A risk for blood glucose imbalance has been reported after smoking cessation, although this is very slight and only temporary,” said Dr. Rouland.

A British retrospective study examined this question, focusing on glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c increased by 0.21% (95% CI, 0.17-0.25; P < .001) within the first year after quitting. A1c decreased as abstinence continued and became comparable to that of continual smokers after 3 years. This increase in A1c was not mediated by weight change.

Another study published in 2018 on the topic of type 2 diabetes also reported on the risk for poor glycemic control (defined as A1c > 7%) persisting for 10 years after smoking cessation (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Thereafter, between 10 and 19 years post-cessation, the OR decreased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19, NS). Beyond 20 years post-cessation, the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89-1.44, NS) and was therefore no longer significant.

Regardless, “the risk for poor glycemic control is lower in quitters than in active smokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
 

Quitting and diabetes risk

Will a smoker’s increased risk for diabetes drop when he or she stops smoking? “This is essentially what happens,” Dr. Rouland confirmed, “and his or her increased risk for metabolic syndrome also drops. One meta-analysis revealed a time-based effect.

“Patients who had stopped smoking less than 5 years previously had an increased relative risk for type 2 diabetes, and this risk dropped to 1.11 after more than 10 years of not smoking. Moreover, this relative risk for type 2 diabetes remained lower than that of active smokers, at between 1.19 and 1.60, depending on tobacco use.”

In regard to the risk for metabolic syndrome, those who quit smoking seem to have an increased risk of 10%, compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.10, 1.08-1.11; P < .001). “But yet again, this increased risk is much lower than that of active smokers, whose risk is between 37% (less than 20 cigarettes/day) and 71% (more than 20 cigarettes/day).”
 

Women with diabetes

“The benefits of quitting appear identical, regardless of the sex of the diabetic person,” said Dr. Rouland. “As in the general population, weight gain after smoking cessation is greater in women. Furthermore, while smoking increases the risk for gestational diabetes (RR, 1.4-1.9) and for the use of insulin in this context, stopping smoking reduces these risks.

“Moreover, smoking during pregnancy not only increases the risk for pregnancy-related complications (early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, birth defects, placental abruption, premature birth, intrauterine fetal demise, cesarean birth, low birth weight), but it also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the newborn. The risk to the newborn is said to be around 34% in cases in which the mother smokes during pregnancy and 22% in cases in which the mother is a passive smoker, thereby justifying the use of measures to help the mother’s family members to stop smoking.”

Dr. Rouland reports no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Would closed-loop systems be a good option for young patients with type 1 diabetes?

International and French recommendations on closed-loop systems state that the use of an “artificial pancreas” should be reserved for adults who are fully engaged with their treatment. This means that young patients, especially adolescents, who are less likely to comply with treatment and are more likely to experience suboptimal blood glucose control, are often excluded from the use of such systems for managing their diabetes.

Several recent studies seem to call this approach into question.

One such study, which was presented at a Francophone Diabetes Society conference and was published in Nature Communications, showed that adolescents with poorly controlled diabetes who were equipped with closed-loop systems gained IQ points and reasoning capacity and experienced a reduction in edematous tissue in the brain cortex. Furthermore, with the closed-loop system, patients spent 13% more time in a target range, and there was a significant reduction in time spent in hyperglycemia.

In the same vein, a small prospective study published in Diabetes Care showed that the closed-loop system with the Minimed 780G pump improved glycemic control for 20 young patients with type 1 diabetes aged 13-25 years whose diabetes was poorly controlled (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.5%). At the end of the 3-month study period, the average A1c had decreased from 10.5% (±2.1%) to 7.6% (±1.1%), an average decrease of 2.9%. The time spent in target A1c, which was set from 0.70 g/L to 1.80 g/L, was increased by almost 40%.

With respect to very young children, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine also showed a favorable risk-benefit ratio for closed-loop systems. The trial, which enrolled 102 children aged 2 years to less than 6 years who had type 1 diabetes, showed that the amount of time that the glucose level was within the target range during the 13-week study period was higher (+3 hours) for those who had been randomly assigned to receive the hybrid closed-loop system (n = 68) than for those who had received the standard treatment (n = 34), either with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections or a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring device.

A previous study carried out by the Paris Public Hospital System had already shown that the French Diabeloop system could reduce episodes of hypoglycemia and achieve good glycemic control for prepubescent children (n = 21; aged 6-12 years) with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions.

Eric Renard, MD, PhD, head of the department of endocrinology and diabetes at Lapeyronie Hospital in Montpellier, France, was not surprised at the findings from the study, especially in adolescents with poorly controlled diabetes.

“We have already seen studies in which those patients who had the most poorly controlled diabetes at the start were the ones who improved the most with the closed-loop system, by at least 20% in terms of time in target. These findings resonate with what I see in my clinic,” said Dr. Renard in an interview.

“In my experience, these young adolescents, who neglected their diabetes when they had no devices to help control it, when they had to inject themselves, et cetera ... well, they’re just not the same people when they’re put on a closed-loop system,” he added. “They rise to the challenge, and for the first time, they succeed without making a huge effort, since the algorithm does what they weren’t doing. It’s astonishing to see near-total engagement in these young people when explaining the technology to them and saying, ‘Let’s give it a go.’ These are the very same youngsters who didn’t want to hear about their diabetes in the past. They are delighted and once again involved in managing their condition.”

That’s why Dr. Renard recommends keeping an open mind when considering treatment options for young patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes.

“When young people have very poorly controlled diabetes, they risk having cardiovascular complications and damaging their retinas and kidneys,” he said. “If we can get them from 25% to 45% time in target, even if that hasn’t been easy to achieve, this will help save their blood vessels! The only thing we have to be careful of is that we don’t set up a closed-loop system in someone who doesn’t want one. But, if it can manage to spark the interest of a young patient, in most cases, it’s beneficial.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Would closed-loop systems be a good option for young patients with type 1 diabetes?

International and French recommendations on closed-loop systems state that the use of an “artificial pancreas” should be reserved for adults who are fully engaged with their treatment. This means that young patients, especially adolescents, who are less likely to comply with treatment and are more likely to experience suboptimal blood glucose control, are often excluded from the use of such systems for managing their diabetes.

Several recent studies seem to call this approach into question.

One such study, which was presented at a Francophone Diabetes Society conference and was published in Nature Communications, showed that adolescents with poorly controlled diabetes who were equipped with closed-loop systems gained IQ points and reasoning capacity and experienced a reduction in edematous tissue in the brain cortex. Furthermore, with the closed-loop system, patients spent 13% more time in a target range, and there was a significant reduction in time spent in hyperglycemia.

In the same vein, a small prospective study published in Diabetes Care showed that the closed-loop system with the Minimed 780G pump improved glycemic control for 20 young patients with type 1 diabetes aged 13-25 years whose diabetes was poorly controlled (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.5%). At the end of the 3-month study period, the average A1c had decreased from 10.5% (±2.1%) to 7.6% (±1.1%), an average decrease of 2.9%. The time spent in target A1c, which was set from 0.70 g/L to 1.80 g/L, was increased by almost 40%.

With respect to very young children, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine also showed a favorable risk-benefit ratio for closed-loop systems. The trial, which enrolled 102 children aged 2 years to less than 6 years who had type 1 diabetes, showed that the amount of time that the glucose level was within the target range during the 13-week study period was higher (+3 hours) for those who had been randomly assigned to receive the hybrid closed-loop system (n = 68) than for those who had received the standard treatment (n = 34), either with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections or a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring device.

A previous study carried out by the Paris Public Hospital System had already shown that the French Diabeloop system could reduce episodes of hypoglycemia and achieve good glycemic control for prepubescent children (n = 21; aged 6-12 years) with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions.

Eric Renard, MD, PhD, head of the department of endocrinology and diabetes at Lapeyronie Hospital in Montpellier, France, was not surprised at the findings from the study, especially in adolescents with poorly controlled diabetes.

“We have already seen studies in which those patients who had the most poorly controlled diabetes at the start were the ones who improved the most with the closed-loop system, by at least 20% in terms of time in target. These findings resonate with what I see in my clinic,” said Dr. Renard in an interview.

“In my experience, these young adolescents, who neglected their diabetes when they had no devices to help control it, when they had to inject themselves, et cetera ... well, they’re just not the same people when they’re put on a closed-loop system,” he added. “They rise to the challenge, and for the first time, they succeed without making a huge effort, since the algorithm does what they weren’t doing. It’s astonishing to see near-total engagement in these young people when explaining the technology to them and saying, ‘Let’s give it a go.’ These are the very same youngsters who didn’t want to hear about their diabetes in the past. They are delighted and once again involved in managing their condition.”

That’s why Dr. Renard recommends keeping an open mind when considering treatment options for young patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes.

“When young people have very poorly controlled diabetes, they risk having cardiovascular complications and damaging their retinas and kidneys,” he said. “If we can get them from 25% to 45% time in target, even if that hasn’t been easy to achieve, this will help save their blood vessels! The only thing we have to be careful of is that we don’t set up a closed-loop system in someone who doesn’t want one. But, if it can manage to spark the interest of a young patient, in most cases, it’s beneficial.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Would closed-loop systems be a good option for young patients with type 1 diabetes?

International and French recommendations on closed-loop systems state that the use of an “artificial pancreas” should be reserved for adults who are fully engaged with their treatment. This means that young patients, especially adolescents, who are less likely to comply with treatment and are more likely to experience suboptimal blood glucose control, are often excluded from the use of such systems for managing their diabetes.

Several recent studies seem to call this approach into question.

One such study, which was presented at a Francophone Diabetes Society conference and was published in Nature Communications, showed that adolescents with poorly controlled diabetes who were equipped with closed-loop systems gained IQ points and reasoning capacity and experienced a reduction in edematous tissue in the brain cortex. Furthermore, with the closed-loop system, patients spent 13% more time in a target range, and there was a significant reduction in time spent in hyperglycemia.

In the same vein, a small prospective study published in Diabetes Care showed that the closed-loop system with the Minimed 780G pump improved glycemic control for 20 young patients with type 1 diabetes aged 13-25 years whose diabetes was poorly controlled (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.5%). At the end of the 3-month study period, the average A1c had decreased from 10.5% (±2.1%) to 7.6% (±1.1%), an average decrease of 2.9%. The time spent in target A1c, which was set from 0.70 g/L to 1.80 g/L, was increased by almost 40%.

With respect to very young children, a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine also showed a favorable risk-benefit ratio for closed-loop systems. The trial, which enrolled 102 children aged 2 years to less than 6 years who had type 1 diabetes, showed that the amount of time that the glucose level was within the target range during the 13-week study period was higher (+3 hours) for those who had been randomly assigned to receive the hybrid closed-loop system (n = 68) than for those who had received the standard treatment (n = 34), either with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections or a Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring device.

A previous study carried out by the Paris Public Hospital System had already shown that the French Diabeloop system could reduce episodes of hypoglycemia and achieve good glycemic control for prepubescent children (n = 21; aged 6-12 years) with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions.

Eric Renard, MD, PhD, head of the department of endocrinology and diabetes at Lapeyronie Hospital in Montpellier, France, was not surprised at the findings from the study, especially in adolescents with poorly controlled diabetes.

“We have already seen studies in which those patients who had the most poorly controlled diabetes at the start were the ones who improved the most with the closed-loop system, by at least 20% in terms of time in target. These findings resonate with what I see in my clinic,” said Dr. Renard in an interview.

“In my experience, these young adolescents, who neglected their diabetes when they had no devices to help control it, when they had to inject themselves, et cetera ... well, they’re just not the same people when they’re put on a closed-loop system,” he added. “They rise to the challenge, and for the first time, they succeed without making a huge effort, since the algorithm does what they weren’t doing. It’s astonishing to see near-total engagement in these young people when explaining the technology to them and saying, ‘Let’s give it a go.’ These are the very same youngsters who didn’t want to hear about their diabetes in the past. They are delighted and once again involved in managing their condition.”

That’s why Dr. Renard recommends keeping an open mind when considering treatment options for young patients with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes.

“When young people have very poorly controlled diabetes, they risk having cardiovascular complications and damaging their retinas and kidneys,” he said. “If we can get them from 25% to 45% time in target, even if that hasn’t been easy to achieve, this will help save their blood vessels! The only thing we have to be careful of is that we don’t set up a closed-loop system in someone who doesn’t want one. But, if it can manage to spark the interest of a young patient, in most cases, it’s beneficial.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The lowest available national prices of drugs to treat obesity are up to 20 times higher than the estimated cost of profitable generic versions of the same agents, according to a new analysis.
 

The findings by Jacob Levi, MBBS, and colleagues were published in Obesity.

“Our study highlights the inequality in pricing that exists for effective antiobesity medications, which are largely unaffordable in most countries,” Dr. Levi, from Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in a press release.

“We show that these drugs can actually be produced and sold profitably for low prices,” he summarized. “A public health approach that prioritizes improving access to medications should be adopted, instead of allowing companies to maximize profits,” Dr. Levi urged.

Dr. Levi and colleagues studied the oral agents orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, topiramate/phentermine, and semaglutide, and subcutaneous liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat obesity, except for oral semaglutide and subcutaneous tirzepatide, which are not yet approved to treat obesity in the absence of type 2 diabetes).

“Worldwide, more people are dying from diabetes and clinical obesity than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined now,” senior author Andrew Hill, MD, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England, pointed out.
 

We need to repeat the low-cost success story with obesity drugs

“Millions of lives have been saved by treating infectious diseases at low cost in poor countries,” Dr. Hill continued. “Now we need to repeat this medical success story, with mass treatment of diabetes and clinical obesity at low prices.”

However, in an accompanying editorial, Eric A. Finkelstein, MD, and Junxing Chay, PhD, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, maintain that “It would be great if everyone had affordable access to all medicines that might improve their health. Yet that is simply not possible, nor will it ever be.”

“What is truly needed is a better way to ration the health care dollars currently available in efforts to maximize population health. That is the challenge ahead not just for [antiobesity medications] but for all treatments,” they say.

“Greater use of cost-effectiveness analysis and direct negotiations, while maintaining the patent system, represents an appropriate approach for allocating scarce health care resources in the United States and beyond,” they continue.
 

Lowest current patented drug prices vs. estimated generic drug prices

New medications for obesity were highly effective in recent clinical trials, but high prices limit the ability of patients to get these medications, Dr. Levi and colleagues write.

They analyzed prices for obesity drugs in 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.

The researchers assessed the price of a 30-day supply of each of the studied branded drugs based on the lowest available price (in 2021 U.S. dollars) from multiple online national price databases.

Then they calculated the estimated minimum price of a 30-day supply of a potential generic version of these drugs, which included the cost of the active medicinal ingredients, the excipients (nonactive ingredients), the prefilled injectable device plus needles (for subcutaneous drugs), transportation, 10% profit, and 27% tax on profit.

The national prices of the branded medications for obesity were significantly higher than the estimated minimum prices of potential generic drugs (see Table).

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

The lowest available national prices of drugs to treat obesity are up to 20 times higher than the estimated cost of profitable generic versions of the same agents, according to a new analysis.
 

The findings by Jacob Levi, MBBS, and colleagues were published in Obesity.

“Our study highlights the inequality in pricing that exists for effective antiobesity medications, which are largely unaffordable in most countries,” Dr. Levi, from Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in a press release.

“We show that these drugs can actually be produced and sold profitably for low prices,” he summarized. “A public health approach that prioritizes improving access to medications should be adopted, instead of allowing companies to maximize profits,” Dr. Levi urged.

Dr. Levi and colleagues studied the oral agents orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, topiramate/phentermine, and semaglutide, and subcutaneous liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat obesity, except for oral semaglutide and subcutaneous tirzepatide, which are not yet approved to treat obesity in the absence of type 2 diabetes).

“Worldwide, more people are dying from diabetes and clinical obesity than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined now,” senior author Andrew Hill, MD, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England, pointed out.
 

We need to repeat the low-cost success story with obesity drugs

“Millions of lives have been saved by treating infectious diseases at low cost in poor countries,” Dr. Hill continued. “Now we need to repeat this medical success story, with mass treatment of diabetes and clinical obesity at low prices.”

However, in an accompanying editorial, Eric A. Finkelstein, MD, and Junxing Chay, PhD, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, maintain that “It would be great if everyone had affordable access to all medicines that might improve their health. Yet that is simply not possible, nor will it ever be.”

“What is truly needed is a better way to ration the health care dollars currently available in efforts to maximize population health. That is the challenge ahead not just for [antiobesity medications] but for all treatments,” they say.

“Greater use of cost-effectiveness analysis and direct negotiations, while maintaining the patent system, represents an appropriate approach for allocating scarce health care resources in the United States and beyond,” they continue.
 

Lowest current patented drug prices vs. estimated generic drug prices

New medications for obesity were highly effective in recent clinical trials, but high prices limit the ability of patients to get these medications, Dr. Levi and colleagues write.

They analyzed prices for obesity drugs in 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.

The researchers assessed the price of a 30-day supply of each of the studied branded drugs based on the lowest available price (in 2021 U.S. dollars) from multiple online national price databases.

Then they calculated the estimated minimum price of a 30-day supply of a potential generic version of these drugs, which included the cost of the active medicinal ingredients, the excipients (nonactive ingredients), the prefilled injectable device plus needles (for subcutaneous drugs), transportation, 10% profit, and 27% tax on profit.

The national prices of the branded medications for obesity were significantly higher than the estimated minimum prices of potential generic drugs (see Table).

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

The lowest available national prices of drugs to treat obesity are up to 20 times higher than the estimated cost of profitable generic versions of the same agents, according to a new analysis.
 

The findings by Jacob Levi, MBBS, and colleagues were published in Obesity.

“Our study highlights the inequality in pricing that exists for effective antiobesity medications, which are largely unaffordable in most countries,” Dr. Levi, from Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, London, said in a press release.

“We show that these drugs can actually be produced and sold profitably for low prices,” he summarized. “A public health approach that prioritizes improving access to medications should be adopted, instead of allowing companies to maximize profits,” Dr. Levi urged.

Dr. Levi and colleagues studied the oral agents orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, topiramate/phentermine, and semaglutide, and subcutaneous liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (all approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat obesity, except for oral semaglutide and subcutaneous tirzepatide, which are not yet approved to treat obesity in the absence of type 2 diabetes).

“Worldwide, more people are dying from diabetes and clinical obesity than HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria combined now,” senior author Andrew Hill, MD, department of pharmacology and therapeutics, University of Liverpool, England, pointed out.
 

We need to repeat the low-cost success story with obesity drugs

“Millions of lives have been saved by treating infectious diseases at low cost in poor countries,” Dr. Hill continued. “Now we need to repeat this medical success story, with mass treatment of diabetes and clinical obesity at low prices.”

However, in an accompanying editorial, Eric A. Finkelstein, MD, and Junxing Chay, PhD, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, maintain that “It would be great if everyone had affordable access to all medicines that might improve their health. Yet that is simply not possible, nor will it ever be.”

“What is truly needed is a better way to ration the health care dollars currently available in efforts to maximize population health. That is the challenge ahead not just for [antiobesity medications] but for all treatments,” they say.

“Greater use of cost-effectiveness analysis and direct negotiations, while maintaining the patent system, represents an appropriate approach for allocating scarce health care resources in the United States and beyond,” they continue.
 

Lowest current patented drug prices vs. estimated generic drug prices

New medications for obesity were highly effective in recent clinical trials, but high prices limit the ability of patients to get these medications, Dr. Levi and colleagues write.

They analyzed prices for obesity drugs in 16 low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Kenya, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Pakistan, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam.

The researchers assessed the price of a 30-day supply of each of the studied branded drugs based on the lowest available price (in 2021 U.S. dollars) from multiple online national price databases.

Then they calculated the estimated minimum price of a 30-day supply of a potential generic version of these drugs, which included the cost of the active medicinal ingredients, the excipients (nonactive ingredients), the prefilled injectable device plus needles (for subcutaneous drugs), transportation, 10% profit, and 27% tax on profit.

The national prices of the branded medications for obesity were significantly higher than the estimated minimum prices of potential generic drugs (see Table).

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

The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.

The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.

Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
 

SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.

The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.

For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.

For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.

In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.

So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.

Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.

Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.

SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
 

More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June

Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.

Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.

Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.

SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.

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

The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.

The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.

Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
 

SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.

The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.

For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.

For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.

In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.

So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.

Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.

Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.

SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
 

More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June

Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.

Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.

Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.

SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.

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

The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.

The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.

Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
 

SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1

SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.

The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.

For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.

For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.

In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.

So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.

Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.

Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.

SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
 

More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June

Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.

Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.

Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.

SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.

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