Diabetes Hub

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

The current risk-based criteria for screening for type 2 diabetes or prediabetes in youth have low sensitivity and specificity for detecting these disorders, and therefore “may miss high-risk youth who should be targeted for diabetes prevention,” according to the investigators of a cross-sectional analysis of youth in the 1999-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database.

Belyjmishka/Getty Images

Regardless of whether or not youth meet screening eligibility, they say, hemoglobin A1c appears to be a “specific and useful test” for detecting high-risk youth.

Those with prediabetic levels of A1c or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) – A1c especially – had a high burden of other cardiometabolic risk factors that could benefit from lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular risk in adulthood, wrote Amelia S. Wallace and coinvestigators at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. The report is in Pediatrics.Their epidemiologic study had two aims: To assess the performance of the American Diabetes Association guidelines for screening in youth, and to evaluate how well various clinical definitions of diabetes and prediabetes identify U.S. youth at high cardiometabolic risk.

The 2018 ADA guidelines recommend screening for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in all asymptomatic youth ages 10 years and older who are overweight or obese and who have at least one risk factor for diabetes: nonwhite race, family history of type 2 diabetes, maternal gestational diabetes, or signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (Diabetes Care. 2018:41[suppl 1:S13-S37]).

Approximately one-quarter of U.S. youth were found to be eligible for screening under the current ADA criteria, but there were few cases of confirmed diabetes (A1c greater than or equal to 6.5% and fasting plasma glucose greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL) that had gone undiagnosed (less than 0.5%), said Ms. Wallace and her associates.

Considering all hyperglycemia (undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes) in the NHANES youth population, the sensitivity and specificity of the ADA criteria for detecting A1c-defined hyperglycemia (greater than or equal to 5.7%) were 56% and 76%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity for detecting FBG-defined hyperglycemia (greater than or equal to 100 mg/dL) were 36% and 77%.

The prevalence of any hyperglycemia was higher in youth who met ADA screening criteria than in those who didn’t, but there were also “a substantial number of youth with hyperglycemia in the non–screening eligible population,” they wrote. “In fact, the absolute number of youth with elevated FPG was larger in the non–screening eligible population, and the majority (88.5%) of these youth were of normal weight.”

Across all youth (irrespective of screening eligibility), both FPG and A1c-defined hyperglycemia effectively identified children and adolescents who had a high burden of cardiometabolic risk (obesity, metabolic syndrome, and hypercholesterolemia). Using a confirmatory definition of elevations in both FPG and A1c “provided the highest discrimination for cardiometabolic risk,” Ms. Wallace and her associates said.

But in comparing the single tests, risk factor associations with hyperglycemia were consistently stronger with A1c-defined hyperglycemia (odds ratios of 2.6-4.1) than FBG-defined hyperglycemia (ORs of 1.5-3.0). A1c-defined hyperglycemia “identifies a smaller, but higher-risk, population than FPG-defined hyperglycemia,” they said.

In an accompanying commentary, Tamara S. Hannon, MD, MS, of the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, said that more effective algorithms to determine who should have laboratory testing “could be useful.” Still, “for youth with obesity and multiple risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes, the principal challenge is how to effectively prevent or delay this disease for them and future generations.”

Pediatricians, she said, should screen for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes “according to professional recommendations with simple clinical tests, such as A1c. Screening and education about prediabetes alone can lead to better rates of follow-up for obesity,” she noted (Pediatrics. August 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-010272).

Sheela N. Magge, MD, MSCE, who directs the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and was asked to comment on the study, similarly said that the findings should not discourage use of the ADA guidelines.

While the guidelines may not have optimal sensitivity and specificity, “neither HbA1c nor fasting glucose are perfect screening tools for prediabetes and likely give us different mechanistic information,” she said. (The ADA guidelines also allow the use of a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, but this is not often used by pediatricians, she noted.)

The measurements are “only tools used to identify children who have prediabetes and are therefore at increased risk for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Magge, the Lawson Wilkins Endowed Chair of Pediatric Endocrinology at the university. “These children then need to be managed and followed to try to prevent worsening glycemia.”

Both she and Dr. Hannon stressed that youth with type 2 diabetes have more rapidly progressive disease compared with adults.

Microvascular complications are seen even at diagnosis, Dr. Magge said, and “youth may face serious complications such as cardiovascular disease decades earlier than previous generations.”

Dr. Hannon also noted in her commentary that oral diabetes medications often fail in youth with type 2 diabetes, leading to insulin therapy early on.

The prevalence of youth-onset type 2 diabetes has increased because of rising rates of pediatric overweight and obesity, Dr. Magge emphasized. In her experience, the diabetes risk factors that guide the ADA’s screening approach “are so common in overweight and obese youth that they all have at least one.”

The NHANES data did not contain information on all the variables that make up the current diabetes screening criteria in youth; there was no explicit information on history of maternal gestational diabetes and family history of type 2 diabetes, for instance, or the presence of acanthosis nigricans or polycystic ovarian syndrome – conditions associated with insulin resistance. The investigators said it’s likely, therefore, that the study underestimated the number of U.S. youth who would be eligible for diabetes screening.

And, as Dr. Magge said, “it is difficult to determine which risk factors [in the ADA guidelines] were less predictive.”

The NHANES analysis covered 14,119 youth in the 1999-2016 NHANES surveys, which consisted of interviews and standardized physical exams, including laboratory tests, in home and at a mobile examination center. Analyses involving any fasting lab tests were limited to a random subsample of participants aged 12-19 years without diagnosed diabetes who were asked to fast the night before; 6,225 youth properly followed instructions and were included in this subsample.

The surveys are conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study authors and the editorial author indicated that they have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Magge also said she has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Wallace AS et al. Pediatrics. August 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0265.

The current risk-based criteria for screening for type 2 diabetes or prediabetes in youth have low sensitivity and specificity for detecting these disorders, and therefore “may miss high-risk youth who should be targeted for diabetes prevention,” according to the investigators of a cross-sectional analysis of youth in the 1999-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database.

Belyjmishka/Getty Images

Regardless of whether or not youth meet screening eligibility, they say, hemoglobin A1c appears to be a “specific and useful test” for detecting high-risk youth.

Those with prediabetic levels of A1c or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) – A1c especially – had a high burden of other cardiometabolic risk factors that could benefit from lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular risk in adulthood, wrote Amelia S. Wallace and coinvestigators at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. The report is in Pediatrics.Their epidemiologic study had two aims: To assess the performance of the American Diabetes Association guidelines for screening in youth, and to evaluate how well various clinical definitions of diabetes and prediabetes identify U.S. youth at high cardiometabolic risk.

The 2018 ADA guidelines recommend screening for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in all asymptomatic youth ages 10 years and older who are overweight or obese and who have at least one risk factor for diabetes: nonwhite race, family history of type 2 diabetes, maternal gestational diabetes, or signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (Diabetes Care. 2018:41[suppl 1:S13-S37]).

Approximately one-quarter of U.S. youth were found to be eligible for screening under the current ADA criteria, but there were few cases of confirmed diabetes (A1c greater than or equal to 6.5% and fasting plasma glucose greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL) that had gone undiagnosed (less than 0.5%), said Ms. Wallace and her associates.

Considering all hyperglycemia (undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes) in the NHANES youth population, the sensitivity and specificity of the ADA criteria for detecting A1c-defined hyperglycemia (greater than or equal to 5.7%) were 56% and 76%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity for detecting FBG-defined hyperglycemia (greater than or equal to 100 mg/dL) were 36% and 77%.

The prevalence of any hyperglycemia was higher in youth who met ADA screening criteria than in those who didn’t, but there were also “a substantial number of youth with hyperglycemia in the non–screening eligible population,” they wrote. “In fact, the absolute number of youth with elevated FPG was larger in the non–screening eligible population, and the majority (88.5%) of these youth were of normal weight.”

Across all youth (irrespective of screening eligibility), both FPG and A1c-defined hyperglycemia effectively identified children and adolescents who had a high burden of cardiometabolic risk (obesity, metabolic syndrome, and hypercholesterolemia). Using a confirmatory definition of elevations in both FPG and A1c “provided the highest discrimination for cardiometabolic risk,” Ms. Wallace and her associates said.

But in comparing the single tests, risk factor associations with hyperglycemia were consistently stronger with A1c-defined hyperglycemia (odds ratios of 2.6-4.1) than FBG-defined hyperglycemia (ORs of 1.5-3.0). A1c-defined hyperglycemia “identifies a smaller, but higher-risk, population than FPG-defined hyperglycemia,” they said.

In an accompanying commentary, Tamara S. Hannon, MD, MS, of the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, said that more effective algorithms to determine who should have laboratory testing “could be useful.” Still, “for youth with obesity and multiple risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes, the principal challenge is how to effectively prevent or delay this disease for them and future generations.”

Pediatricians, she said, should screen for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes “according to professional recommendations with simple clinical tests, such as A1c. Screening and education about prediabetes alone can lead to better rates of follow-up for obesity,” she noted (Pediatrics. August 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-010272).

Sheela N. Magge, MD, MSCE, who directs the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and was asked to comment on the study, similarly said that the findings should not discourage use of the ADA guidelines.

While the guidelines may not have optimal sensitivity and specificity, “neither HbA1c nor fasting glucose are perfect screening tools for prediabetes and likely give us different mechanistic information,” she said. (The ADA guidelines also allow the use of a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, but this is not often used by pediatricians, she noted.)

The measurements are “only tools used to identify children who have prediabetes and are therefore at increased risk for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Magge, the Lawson Wilkins Endowed Chair of Pediatric Endocrinology at the university. “These children then need to be managed and followed to try to prevent worsening glycemia.”

Both she and Dr. Hannon stressed that youth with type 2 diabetes have more rapidly progressive disease compared with adults.

Microvascular complications are seen even at diagnosis, Dr. Magge said, and “youth may face serious complications such as cardiovascular disease decades earlier than previous generations.”

Dr. Hannon also noted in her commentary that oral diabetes medications often fail in youth with type 2 diabetes, leading to insulin therapy early on.

The prevalence of youth-onset type 2 diabetes has increased because of rising rates of pediatric overweight and obesity, Dr. Magge emphasized. In her experience, the diabetes risk factors that guide the ADA’s screening approach “are so common in overweight and obese youth that they all have at least one.”

The NHANES data did not contain information on all the variables that make up the current diabetes screening criteria in youth; there was no explicit information on history of maternal gestational diabetes and family history of type 2 diabetes, for instance, or the presence of acanthosis nigricans or polycystic ovarian syndrome – conditions associated with insulin resistance. The investigators said it’s likely, therefore, that the study underestimated the number of U.S. youth who would be eligible for diabetes screening.

And, as Dr. Magge said, “it is difficult to determine which risk factors [in the ADA guidelines] were less predictive.”

The NHANES analysis covered 14,119 youth in the 1999-2016 NHANES surveys, which consisted of interviews and standardized physical exams, including laboratory tests, in home and at a mobile examination center. Analyses involving any fasting lab tests were limited to a random subsample of participants aged 12-19 years without diagnosed diabetes who were asked to fast the night before; 6,225 youth properly followed instructions and were included in this subsample.

The surveys are conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study authors and the editorial author indicated that they have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Magge also said she has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Wallace AS et al. Pediatrics. August 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0265.

The current risk-based criteria for screening for type 2 diabetes or prediabetes in youth have low sensitivity and specificity for detecting these disorders, and therefore “may miss high-risk youth who should be targeted for diabetes prevention,” according to the investigators of a cross-sectional analysis of youth in the 1999-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database.

Belyjmishka/Getty Images

Regardless of whether or not youth meet screening eligibility, they say, hemoglobin A1c appears to be a “specific and useful test” for detecting high-risk youth.

Those with prediabetic levels of A1c or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) – A1c especially – had a high burden of other cardiometabolic risk factors that could benefit from lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes and cardiovascular risk in adulthood, wrote Amelia S. Wallace and coinvestigators at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. The report is in Pediatrics.Their epidemiologic study had two aims: To assess the performance of the American Diabetes Association guidelines for screening in youth, and to evaluate how well various clinical definitions of diabetes and prediabetes identify U.S. youth at high cardiometabolic risk.

The 2018 ADA guidelines recommend screening for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in all asymptomatic youth ages 10 years and older who are overweight or obese and who have at least one risk factor for diabetes: nonwhite race, family history of type 2 diabetes, maternal gestational diabetes, or signs of insulin resistance or conditions associated with insulin resistance (Diabetes Care. 2018:41[suppl 1:S13-S37]).

Approximately one-quarter of U.S. youth were found to be eligible for screening under the current ADA criteria, but there were few cases of confirmed diabetes (A1c greater than or equal to 6.5% and fasting plasma glucose greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL) that had gone undiagnosed (less than 0.5%), said Ms. Wallace and her associates.

Considering all hyperglycemia (undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes) in the NHANES youth population, the sensitivity and specificity of the ADA criteria for detecting A1c-defined hyperglycemia (greater than or equal to 5.7%) were 56% and 76%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity for detecting FBG-defined hyperglycemia (greater than or equal to 100 mg/dL) were 36% and 77%.

The prevalence of any hyperglycemia was higher in youth who met ADA screening criteria than in those who didn’t, but there were also “a substantial number of youth with hyperglycemia in the non–screening eligible population,” they wrote. “In fact, the absolute number of youth with elevated FPG was larger in the non–screening eligible population, and the majority (88.5%) of these youth were of normal weight.”

Across all youth (irrespective of screening eligibility), both FPG and A1c-defined hyperglycemia effectively identified children and adolescents who had a high burden of cardiometabolic risk (obesity, metabolic syndrome, and hypercholesterolemia). Using a confirmatory definition of elevations in both FPG and A1c “provided the highest discrimination for cardiometabolic risk,” Ms. Wallace and her associates said.

But in comparing the single tests, risk factor associations with hyperglycemia were consistently stronger with A1c-defined hyperglycemia (odds ratios of 2.6-4.1) than FBG-defined hyperglycemia (ORs of 1.5-3.0). A1c-defined hyperglycemia “identifies a smaller, but higher-risk, population than FPG-defined hyperglycemia,” they said.

In an accompanying commentary, Tamara S. Hannon, MD, MS, of the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetology at Indiana University in Indianapolis, said that more effective algorithms to determine who should have laboratory testing “could be useful.” Still, “for youth with obesity and multiple risk factors for developing type 2 diabetes, the principal challenge is how to effectively prevent or delay this disease for them and future generations.”

Pediatricians, she said, should screen for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes “according to professional recommendations with simple clinical tests, such as A1c. Screening and education about prediabetes alone can lead to better rates of follow-up for obesity,” she noted (Pediatrics. August 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-010272).

Sheela N. Magge, MD, MSCE, who directs the division of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and was asked to comment on the study, similarly said that the findings should not discourage use of the ADA guidelines.

While the guidelines may not have optimal sensitivity and specificity, “neither HbA1c nor fasting glucose are perfect screening tools for prediabetes and likely give us different mechanistic information,” she said. (The ADA guidelines also allow the use of a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, but this is not often used by pediatricians, she noted.)

The measurements are “only tools used to identify children who have prediabetes and are therefore at increased risk for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Magge, the Lawson Wilkins Endowed Chair of Pediatric Endocrinology at the university. “These children then need to be managed and followed to try to prevent worsening glycemia.”

Both she and Dr. Hannon stressed that youth with type 2 diabetes have more rapidly progressive disease compared with adults.

Microvascular complications are seen even at diagnosis, Dr. Magge said, and “youth may face serious complications such as cardiovascular disease decades earlier than previous generations.”

Dr. Hannon also noted in her commentary that oral diabetes medications often fail in youth with type 2 diabetes, leading to insulin therapy early on.

The prevalence of youth-onset type 2 diabetes has increased because of rising rates of pediatric overweight and obesity, Dr. Magge emphasized. In her experience, the diabetes risk factors that guide the ADA’s screening approach “are so common in overweight and obese youth that they all have at least one.”

The NHANES data did not contain information on all the variables that make up the current diabetes screening criteria in youth; there was no explicit information on history of maternal gestational diabetes and family history of type 2 diabetes, for instance, or the presence of acanthosis nigricans or polycystic ovarian syndrome – conditions associated with insulin resistance. The investigators said it’s likely, therefore, that the study underestimated the number of U.S. youth who would be eligible for diabetes screening.

And, as Dr. Magge said, “it is difficult to determine which risk factors [in the ADA guidelines] were less predictive.”

The NHANES analysis covered 14,119 youth in the 1999-2016 NHANES surveys, which consisted of interviews and standardized physical exams, including laboratory tests, in home and at a mobile examination center. Analyses involving any fasting lab tests were limited to a random subsample of participants aged 12-19 years without diagnosed diabetes who were asked to fast the night before; 6,225 youth properly followed instructions and were included in this subsample.

The surveys are conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study authors and the editorial author indicated that they have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Dr. Magge also said she has no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Wallace AS et al. Pediatrics. August 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0265.

“Patients with type 2 diabetes should consider intermittent fasting carefully” and “not undertake it without the involvement of their physician,” stress the authors of a new viewpoint published online July 2 in JAMA.

This is because intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes has only been studied in seven small, short published trials of very different regimens, with limited evidence of benefit. In addition, some concerns arose from these studies.

Weight loss with intermittent fasting appears to be similar to that attained with caloric restriction, but in the case of those with diabetes, the best way to adjust glucose-lowering medicines to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while practicing intermittent fasting has not been established, and there is potential for such fasting to cause glycemic variability.

The viewpoint’s lead author Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MStat, MPH, from Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, and Stanford (Calif.) University, expanded on the issues in a podcast interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard C. Bauchner, MD.

Asked if he would advise intermittent fasting for patients with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Horne replied that he would recommend it, with caveats, “because of the safety issues – some of which are fairly benign for people who are apparently healthy but may be not quite as benign for people with type 2 diabetes.

“Things such as low blood pressure, weakness, headaches, [and] dizziness are considerations,” he continued, but “the big issue” is hypoglycemia, so caloric restriction may be a better choice for some patients with diabetes.

Dr. Horne said he likes to give patients options. “I’ve met quite a number of people who are very behind time-restricted feeding – eating during a 6- to 8-hour window,” he said. “If they are able to stay on it, they tend to really love it.”

The most popular regimen that results in some weight loss is fasting for 24 hours – with or without a 500-calorie meal – on 2 nonconsecutive days a week, the so-called 5:2 diet. And “as someone who’s in cardiovascular research,” Dr. Horne added, “the one that I’m thinking for long term is once-a-week fasting for a 24-hour period.”
 

Intermittent fasting: Less safe than calorie restriction in diabetes?

Patients who already have diabetes and lose weight benefit from improved glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues wrote.

Currently, intermittent fasting is popular in the lay press and on social media with claims of potential benefits for diabetes “that are as yet untested or unproven,” they added. In fact, “whether a patient with type 2 diabetes should engage in intermittent fasting involves a variety of concerns over safety and efficacy.”

Thus, they examined the existing evidence for the health effects and safety of intermittent fasting – defined as time-restricted feeding, or fasting on alternate days or during 1-4 days a week, with only water or also juice and bone broth, or no more than 700 calories allowed on fasting days – in patients with type 2 diabetes.

They found seven published studies of intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes, including five randomized clinical trials, of which only one study had more than 63 patients.

Intermittent fasting regimens in the studies included five fasting frequencies and most follow-up durations were 4 months or less, including 18-20 hours a day for 2 weeks; 2 days a week for 12 weeks (two studies) or for 12 months (one study); 3-4 days a week for 7-11 months; 4 days a week for 12 weeks; and 17 days in 4 months.

They all reported that intermittent fasting was tied to weight loss, and most (but not all) of the studies also found that it was associated with decreases in A1c and improved glucose levels, quality of life, and blood pressure, but not insulin resistance.

But this “heterogeneity of designs and regimens and the variance in results make it difficult to draw clinically meaningful direction,” Dr. Horne and colleagues observed.

Moreover, only one study addressed the relative safety of two intermittent fasting regimens, and it found that both regimens increased hypoglycemic events despite the use of a medication dose-change protocol.

Only one study explicitly compared intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which found “that a twice-weekly intermittent fasting regimen improved [A1c] levels is promising,” the authors wrote.

However, that study showed only noninferiority for change in A1c level (–0.3% for intermittent fasting vs. –0.5% for caloric restriction).

The major implication, according to the viewpoint authors, is that “intermittent fasting may be less safe than caloric restriction although approximately equivalently effective.”

“Therefore,” they summarized, “until intermittent fasting is shown to be more effective than caloric restriction for reducing [A1c] or otherwise controlling diabetes, that study – and the limited other high-quality data – suggest that intermittent fasting regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes recommended by health professionals or promoted to the public should be limited to individuals for whom the risk of hypoglycemia is closely monitored and medications are carefully adjusted to ensure safety.”

Should continuous glucose monitoring to detect glycemic variability be considered?

Intermittent fasting may also bring wider fluctuations of glycemic control than simple calorie restriction, with hypoglycemia during fasting times and hyperglycemia during feeding times, which would not be reflected in A1c levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues pointed out.

“Studies have raised concern that glycemic variability leads to both microvascular (e.g., retinopathy) and macrovascular (e.g., coronary disease) complications in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they cautioned.

Therefore, “continuous glucose monitoring should be considered for studies of ... clinical interventions using intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they concluded.

Dr. Horne has reported serving as principal investigator of grants for studies on intermittent fasting from the Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation. Disclosures of the other two authors are listed with the viewpoint.

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

“Patients with type 2 diabetes should consider intermittent fasting carefully” and “not undertake it without the involvement of their physician,” stress the authors of a new viewpoint published online July 2 in JAMA.

This is because intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes has only been studied in seven small, short published trials of very different regimens, with limited evidence of benefit. In addition, some concerns arose from these studies.

Weight loss with intermittent fasting appears to be similar to that attained with caloric restriction, but in the case of those with diabetes, the best way to adjust glucose-lowering medicines to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while practicing intermittent fasting has not been established, and there is potential for such fasting to cause glycemic variability.

The viewpoint’s lead author Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MStat, MPH, from Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, and Stanford (Calif.) University, expanded on the issues in a podcast interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard C. Bauchner, MD.

Asked if he would advise intermittent fasting for patients with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Horne replied that he would recommend it, with caveats, “because of the safety issues – some of which are fairly benign for people who are apparently healthy but may be not quite as benign for people with type 2 diabetes.

“Things such as low blood pressure, weakness, headaches, [and] dizziness are considerations,” he continued, but “the big issue” is hypoglycemia, so caloric restriction may be a better choice for some patients with diabetes.

Dr. Horne said he likes to give patients options. “I’ve met quite a number of people who are very behind time-restricted feeding – eating during a 6- to 8-hour window,” he said. “If they are able to stay on it, they tend to really love it.”

The most popular regimen that results in some weight loss is fasting for 24 hours – with or without a 500-calorie meal – on 2 nonconsecutive days a week, the so-called 5:2 diet. And “as someone who’s in cardiovascular research,” Dr. Horne added, “the one that I’m thinking for long term is once-a-week fasting for a 24-hour period.”
 

Intermittent fasting: Less safe than calorie restriction in diabetes?

Patients who already have diabetes and lose weight benefit from improved glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues wrote.

Currently, intermittent fasting is popular in the lay press and on social media with claims of potential benefits for diabetes “that are as yet untested or unproven,” they added. In fact, “whether a patient with type 2 diabetes should engage in intermittent fasting involves a variety of concerns over safety and efficacy.”

Thus, they examined the existing evidence for the health effects and safety of intermittent fasting – defined as time-restricted feeding, or fasting on alternate days or during 1-4 days a week, with only water or also juice and bone broth, or no more than 700 calories allowed on fasting days – in patients with type 2 diabetes.

They found seven published studies of intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes, including five randomized clinical trials, of which only one study had more than 63 patients.

Intermittent fasting regimens in the studies included five fasting frequencies and most follow-up durations were 4 months or less, including 18-20 hours a day for 2 weeks; 2 days a week for 12 weeks (two studies) or for 12 months (one study); 3-4 days a week for 7-11 months; 4 days a week for 12 weeks; and 17 days in 4 months.

They all reported that intermittent fasting was tied to weight loss, and most (but not all) of the studies also found that it was associated with decreases in A1c and improved glucose levels, quality of life, and blood pressure, but not insulin resistance.

But this “heterogeneity of designs and regimens and the variance in results make it difficult to draw clinically meaningful direction,” Dr. Horne and colleagues observed.

Moreover, only one study addressed the relative safety of two intermittent fasting regimens, and it found that both regimens increased hypoglycemic events despite the use of a medication dose-change protocol.

Only one study explicitly compared intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which found “that a twice-weekly intermittent fasting regimen improved [A1c] levels is promising,” the authors wrote.

However, that study showed only noninferiority for change in A1c level (–0.3% for intermittent fasting vs. –0.5% for caloric restriction).

The major implication, according to the viewpoint authors, is that “intermittent fasting may be less safe than caloric restriction although approximately equivalently effective.”

“Therefore,” they summarized, “until intermittent fasting is shown to be more effective than caloric restriction for reducing [A1c] or otherwise controlling diabetes, that study – and the limited other high-quality data – suggest that intermittent fasting regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes recommended by health professionals or promoted to the public should be limited to individuals for whom the risk of hypoglycemia is closely monitored and medications are carefully adjusted to ensure safety.”

Should continuous glucose monitoring to detect glycemic variability be considered?

Intermittent fasting may also bring wider fluctuations of glycemic control than simple calorie restriction, with hypoglycemia during fasting times and hyperglycemia during feeding times, which would not be reflected in A1c levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues pointed out.

“Studies have raised concern that glycemic variability leads to both microvascular (e.g., retinopathy) and macrovascular (e.g., coronary disease) complications in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they cautioned.

Therefore, “continuous glucose monitoring should be considered for studies of ... clinical interventions using intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they concluded.

Dr. Horne has reported serving as principal investigator of grants for studies on intermittent fasting from the Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation. Disclosures of the other two authors are listed with the viewpoint.

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

“Patients with type 2 diabetes should consider intermittent fasting carefully” and “not undertake it without the involvement of their physician,” stress the authors of a new viewpoint published online July 2 in JAMA.

This is because intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes has only been studied in seven small, short published trials of very different regimens, with limited evidence of benefit. In addition, some concerns arose from these studies.

Weight loss with intermittent fasting appears to be similar to that attained with caloric restriction, but in the case of those with diabetes, the best way to adjust glucose-lowering medicines to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia while practicing intermittent fasting has not been established, and there is potential for such fasting to cause glycemic variability.

The viewpoint’s lead author Benjamin D. Horne, PhD, MStat, MPH, from Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, and Stanford (Calif.) University, expanded on the issues in a podcast interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard C. Bauchner, MD.

Asked if he would advise intermittent fasting for patients with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Horne replied that he would recommend it, with caveats, “because of the safety issues – some of which are fairly benign for people who are apparently healthy but may be not quite as benign for people with type 2 diabetes.

“Things such as low blood pressure, weakness, headaches, [and] dizziness are considerations,” he continued, but “the big issue” is hypoglycemia, so caloric restriction may be a better choice for some patients with diabetes.

Dr. Horne said he likes to give patients options. “I’ve met quite a number of people who are very behind time-restricted feeding – eating during a 6- to 8-hour window,” he said. “If they are able to stay on it, they tend to really love it.”

The most popular regimen that results in some weight loss is fasting for 24 hours – with or without a 500-calorie meal – on 2 nonconsecutive days a week, the so-called 5:2 diet. And “as someone who’s in cardiovascular research,” Dr. Horne added, “the one that I’m thinking for long term is once-a-week fasting for a 24-hour period.”
 

Intermittent fasting: Less safe than calorie restriction in diabetes?

Patients who already have diabetes and lose weight benefit from improved glucose, blood pressure, and lipid levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues wrote.

Currently, intermittent fasting is popular in the lay press and on social media with claims of potential benefits for diabetes “that are as yet untested or unproven,” they added. In fact, “whether a patient with type 2 diabetes should engage in intermittent fasting involves a variety of concerns over safety and efficacy.”

Thus, they examined the existing evidence for the health effects and safety of intermittent fasting – defined as time-restricted feeding, or fasting on alternate days or during 1-4 days a week, with only water or also juice and bone broth, or no more than 700 calories allowed on fasting days – in patients with type 2 diabetes.

They found seven published studies of intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes, including five randomized clinical trials, of which only one study had more than 63 patients.

Intermittent fasting regimens in the studies included five fasting frequencies and most follow-up durations were 4 months or less, including 18-20 hours a day for 2 weeks; 2 days a week for 12 weeks (two studies) or for 12 months (one study); 3-4 days a week for 7-11 months; 4 days a week for 12 weeks; and 17 days in 4 months.

They all reported that intermittent fasting was tied to weight loss, and most (but not all) of the studies also found that it was associated with decreases in A1c and improved glucose levels, quality of life, and blood pressure, but not insulin resistance.

But this “heterogeneity of designs and regimens and the variance in results make it difficult to draw clinically meaningful direction,” Dr. Horne and colleagues observed.

Moreover, only one study addressed the relative safety of two intermittent fasting regimens, and it found that both regimens increased hypoglycemic events despite the use of a medication dose-change protocol.

Only one study explicitly compared intermittent fasting with caloric restriction, which found “that a twice-weekly intermittent fasting regimen improved [A1c] levels is promising,” the authors wrote.

However, that study showed only noninferiority for change in A1c level (–0.3% for intermittent fasting vs. –0.5% for caloric restriction).

The major implication, according to the viewpoint authors, is that “intermittent fasting may be less safe than caloric restriction although approximately equivalently effective.”

“Therefore,” they summarized, “until intermittent fasting is shown to be more effective than caloric restriction for reducing [A1c] or otherwise controlling diabetes, that study – and the limited other high-quality data – suggest that intermittent fasting regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes recommended by health professionals or promoted to the public should be limited to individuals for whom the risk of hypoglycemia is closely monitored and medications are carefully adjusted to ensure safety.”

Should continuous glucose monitoring to detect glycemic variability be considered?

Intermittent fasting may also bring wider fluctuations of glycemic control than simple calorie restriction, with hypoglycemia during fasting times and hyperglycemia during feeding times, which would not be reflected in A1c levels, Dr. Horne and colleagues pointed out.

“Studies have raised concern that glycemic variability leads to both microvascular (e.g., retinopathy) and macrovascular (e.g., coronary disease) complications in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they cautioned.

Therefore, “continuous glucose monitoring should be considered for studies of ... clinical interventions using intermittent fasting in patients with type 2 diabetes,” they concluded.

Dr. Horne has reported serving as principal investigator of grants for studies on intermittent fasting from the Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation. Disclosures of the other two authors are listed with the viewpoint.

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

Teens and young adults with diabetes have cognitive deficits that vary by diabetes type and could negatively impact their medical literacy and self-care, an investigator reported at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Individuals with youth-onset type 1 or 2 diabetes all performed below average on tests that measure flexible thinking and problem solving, according to the investigator, who reported an analysis including 1,380 individuals enrolled in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study.

That finding suggests that diabetes diagnosed before age 20 contributes to poor fluid cognitive function, which consists of skills that facilitate goal-directed behaviors, according to investigator Allison Shapiro, MPH, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

However, individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) performed even worse than those with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on the fluid cognitive function tests, even after adjustment for demographic factors and other confounders, Dr. Shapiro said in her presentation.

Further analysis revealed that individuals with T2D performed significantly worse on measures of crystallized cognition, a domain that includes skills such as vocabulary and language. That suggests the poor fluid cognitive abilities in youths with diabetes may in fact be a result of poor crystallized cognitive development, according to the investigator.

“Among adolescents and young adults with youth-onset type 2 diabetes specifically, intervention should focus on developing both fluid cognitive skills and crystallized cognitive skills,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Deficits in fluid cognitive function (such as reasoning or processing speed) can negatively affect diabetes self-care, thereby potentially increasing the risk of diabetes-related complications, while deficits in crystallized cognitive function (such as vocabulary and understanding of language) could impact medical literacy further compounding the self-care issues.

The study is believed to be one of the first to compare cognitive function deficits in youths with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Although studies in adults clearly show a detrimental relationship between diabetes and cognitive function, according to Dr. Shapiro, the bulk of the research in youths has focused on T1D.

“While limited work has been done in youth-onset type 2 diabetes, cognitive deficits are consistently observed, compared to youth without diabetes,” she said.

Results of this study emphasize the importance of dietary changes and other lifestyle interventions in young patients with diabetes, according to David Della-Morte, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Miami.

“Even the youngest patients may develop cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Della-Morte said in an interview. “That means that lifestyle is very important, especially in obese patients that are prone to develop type 2 diabetes.”

The analysis by Dr. Shapiro and coinvestigators included 1,095 youths and young adults with T1D and 285 with T2D who had undergone a cognition assessment as part of a study visit. They were aged an average of 22 years, and had an average diabetes duration of 11 years.

The overall fluid cognition score was significantly lower in those individuals with T2D, compared with those with T1D, investigators found. Compared with the national average score of 100, the T2D group scored 84.7, or a full standard deviation below that average, said Dr. Shapiro, while those with T1D scored 95.5 (P < .001).

Participants with T2D also scored significantly lower in individual measures of fluid cognition, including processing speed, inhibitory control and attention, working memory, and episodic memory, she reported. At first glance, that suggested youth-onset T2D has a specific effect on fluid cognition; however, the story remains incomplete without looking at crystallized cognition markers such as vocabulary and language.

Toward that end, a picture vocabulary test conducted as part of the cognitive assessment showed a significant difference between those with T2D, who on average scored 91.5, and those with T1D, who scored 103.6 (P < .001). Accounting for those picture vocabulary scores attenuated the differences between groups in fluid cognitive scores, suggesting that differences in crystallized cognitive function underly the observed differences in fluid cognitive function between groups, Dr. Shapiro said.

Skills such as vocabulary and language are thought to be stable and not influenced by neurologic changes brought on by disease processes such as youth-onset diabetes, but rather, influenced by factors such as childcare and education, according to Dr. Shapiro.

“Crystallized cognition therefore provides a window into an individual’s cognitive functioning, independent of their disease or premorbid to the onset of their disease,” she said.

Dr. Shapiro said she had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Shapiro A et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 279-OR.

Teens and young adults with diabetes have cognitive deficits that vary by diabetes type and could negatively impact their medical literacy and self-care, an investigator reported at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Individuals with youth-onset type 1 or 2 diabetes all performed below average on tests that measure flexible thinking and problem solving, according to the investigator, who reported an analysis including 1,380 individuals enrolled in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study.

That finding suggests that diabetes diagnosed before age 20 contributes to poor fluid cognitive function, which consists of skills that facilitate goal-directed behaviors, according to investigator Allison Shapiro, MPH, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

However, individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) performed even worse than those with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on the fluid cognitive function tests, even after adjustment for demographic factors and other confounders, Dr. Shapiro said in her presentation.

Further analysis revealed that individuals with T2D performed significantly worse on measures of crystallized cognition, a domain that includes skills such as vocabulary and language. That suggests the poor fluid cognitive abilities in youths with diabetes may in fact be a result of poor crystallized cognitive development, according to the investigator.

“Among adolescents and young adults with youth-onset type 2 diabetes specifically, intervention should focus on developing both fluid cognitive skills and crystallized cognitive skills,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Deficits in fluid cognitive function (such as reasoning or processing speed) can negatively affect diabetes self-care, thereby potentially increasing the risk of diabetes-related complications, while deficits in crystallized cognitive function (such as vocabulary and understanding of language) could impact medical literacy further compounding the self-care issues.

The study is believed to be one of the first to compare cognitive function deficits in youths with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Although studies in adults clearly show a detrimental relationship between diabetes and cognitive function, according to Dr. Shapiro, the bulk of the research in youths has focused on T1D.

“While limited work has been done in youth-onset type 2 diabetes, cognitive deficits are consistently observed, compared to youth without diabetes,” she said.

Results of this study emphasize the importance of dietary changes and other lifestyle interventions in young patients with diabetes, according to David Della-Morte, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Miami.

“Even the youngest patients may develop cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Della-Morte said in an interview. “That means that lifestyle is very important, especially in obese patients that are prone to develop type 2 diabetes.”

The analysis by Dr. Shapiro and coinvestigators included 1,095 youths and young adults with T1D and 285 with T2D who had undergone a cognition assessment as part of a study visit. They were aged an average of 22 years, and had an average diabetes duration of 11 years.

The overall fluid cognition score was significantly lower in those individuals with T2D, compared with those with T1D, investigators found. Compared with the national average score of 100, the T2D group scored 84.7, or a full standard deviation below that average, said Dr. Shapiro, while those with T1D scored 95.5 (P < .001).

Participants with T2D also scored significantly lower in individual measures of fluid cognition, including processing speed, inhibitory control and attention, working memory, and episodic memory, she reported. At first glance, that suggested youth-onset T2D has a specific effect on fluid cognition; however, the story remains incomplete without looking at crystallized cognition markers such as vocabulary and language.

Toward that end, a picture vocabulary test conducted as part of the cognitive assessment showed a significant difference between those with T2D, who on average scored 91.5, and those with T1D, who scored 103.6 (P < .001). Accounting for those picture vocabulary scores attenuated the differences between groups in fluid cognitive scores, suggesting that differences in crystallized cognitive function underly the observed differences in fluid cognitive function between groups, Dr. Shapiro said.

Skills such as vocabulary and language are thought to be stable and not influenced by neurologic changes brought on by disease processes such as youth-onset diabetes, but rather, influenced by factors such as childcare and education, according to Dr. Shapiro.

“Crystallized cognition therefore provides a window into an individual’s cognitive functioning, independent of their disease or premorbid to the onset of their disease,” she said.

Dr. Shapiro said she had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Shapiro A et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 279-OR.

Teens and young adults with diabetes have cognitive deficits that vary by diabetes type and could negatively impact their medical literacy and self-care, an investigator reported at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Individuals with youth-onset type 1 or 2 diabetes all performed below average on tests that measure flexible thinking and problem solving, according to the investigator, who reported an analysis including 1,380 individuals enrolled in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study.

That finding suggests that diabetes diagnosed before age 20 contributes to poor fluid cognitive function, which consists of skills that facilitate goal-directed behaviors, according to investigator Allison Shapiro, MPH, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

However, individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) performed even worse than those with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on the fluid cognitive function tests, even after adjustment for demographic factors and other confounders, Dr. Shapiro said in her presentation.

Further analysis revealed that individuals with T2D performed significantly worse on measures of crystallized cognition, a domain that includes skills such as vocabulary and language. That suggests the poor fluid cognitive abilities in youths with diabetes may in fact be a result of poor crystallized cognitive development, according to the investigator.

“Among adolescents and young adults with youth-onset type 2 diabetes specifically, intervention should focus on developing both fluid cognitive skills and crystallized cognitive skills,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Deficits in fluid cognitive function (such as reasoning or processing speed) can negatively affect diabetes self-care, thereby potentially increasing the risk of diabetes-related complications, while deficits in crystallized cognitive function (such as vocabulary and understanding of language) could impact medical literacy further compounding the self-care issues.

The study is believed to be one of the first to compare cognitive function deficits in youths with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Although studies in adults clearly show a detrimental relationship between diabetes and cognitive function, according to Dr. Shapiro, the bulk of the research in youths has focused on T1D.

“While limited work has been done in youth-onset type 2 diabetes, cognitive deficits are consistently observed, compared to youth without diabetes,” she said.

Results of this study emphasize the importance of dietary changes and other lifestyle interventions in young patients with diabetes, according to David Della-Morte, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the University of Miami.

“Even the youngest patients may develop cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Della-Morte said in an interview. “That means that lifestyle is very important, especially in obese patients that are prone to develop type 2 diabetes.”

The analysis by Dr. Shapiro and coinvestigators included 1,095 youths and young adults with T1D and 285 with T2D who had undergone a cognition assessment as part of a study visit. They were aged an average of 22 years, and had an average diabetes duration of 11 years.

The overall fluid cognition score was significantly lower in those individuals with T2D, compared with those with T1D, investigators found. Compared with the national average score of 100, the T2D group scored 84.7, or a full standard deviation below that average, said Dr. Shapiro, while those with T1D scored 95.5 (P < .001).

Participants with T2D also scored significantly lower in individual measures of fluid cognition, including processing speed, inhibitory control and attention, working memory, and episodic memory, she reported. At first glance, that suggested youth-onset T2D has a specific effect on fluid cognition; however, the story remains incomplete without looking at crystallized cognition markers such as vocabulary and language.

Toward that end, a picture vocabulary test conducted as part of the cognitive assessment showed a significant difference between those with T2D, who on average scored 91.5, and those with T1D, who scored 103.6 (P < .001). Accounting for those picture vocabulary scores attenuated the differences between groups in fluid cognitive scores, suggesting that differences in crystallized cognitive function underly the observed differences in fluid cognitive function between groups, Dr. Shapiro said.

Skills such as vocabulary and language are thought to be stable and not influenced by neurologic changes brought on by disease processes such as youth-onset diabetes, but rather, influenced by factors such as childcare and education, according to Dr. Shapiro.

“Crystallized cognition therefore provides a window into an individual’s cognitive functioning, independent of their disease or premorbid to the onset of their disease,” she said.

Dr. Shapiro said she had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Shapiro A et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 279-OR.

It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.

Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.

The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.

“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.

The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.

Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
 

Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity

The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.

But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.

The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.

The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
 

Management implications

The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.

Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”

Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.

“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.

Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.

It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.

Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.

The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.

“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.

The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.

Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
 

Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity

The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.

But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.

The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.

The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
 

Management implications

The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.

Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”

Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.

“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.

Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.

It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.

Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.

The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.

“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.

The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.

Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
 

Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity

The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.

But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.

The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.

The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
 

Management implications

The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.

Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”

Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.

“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.

Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin led to a significant drop in the occurrence of ‘fast decline’ of renal function in more than 15,000 patients enrolled in the drug’s main cardiovascular outcome trial, another example of the potent renal protective effects of agents from this drug class.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Among patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, the incidence of a fast decline in renal function, defined as a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 3 mL/min per 1.73 m², was 27% among patients treated with dapagliflozin and 37% in control patients who received placebo, a statistically significant difference for this post-hoc analysis, Itamar Raz, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

This finding, which adds to a long list of other renal function parameters reported to have been improved by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “emphasizes the value of SGLT2 inhibitors as an important component of both prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Raz, a diabetes researcher and professor of medicine at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.

The primary, prespecified renal outcomes in DECLARE-TIMI 58 were a cardiorenal composite outcome of sustained decline of at least 40% in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², end-stage renal disease (defined as dialysis for at least 90 days, kidney transplantation, or confirmed sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or death from renal or cardiovascular causes; and a second prespecified renal-specific composite outcome that was the same except for excluding death from cardiovascular causes. The results showed that the cardiorenal outcome dropped by a statistically significant 24% with dapagliflozin treatment relative to control patients, and the renal-specific outcome fell by a statistically significant 47% with dapagliflozin relative to control patients (Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1;7[8];606-17).

The new findings on the incidence of fast decline in renal function help to further flesh out the scope of renal benefit exerted by SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes, said experts. Fast decline is a relatively recently devised measure of a high-risk, precipitous loss of renal function that has been defined as a drop of either 3 or 5 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91[6]:1300-11); for this analysis Dr. Raz and his associates used the less stringent definition.
 

Finding and treating ‘fast decliners’

The new report from Dr. Raz “confirms the original [renal] findings and looks to expand them to a particularly high risk group: the fast decliners,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science & medical officer of the ADA. “In some ways, the group of patients that we need to find a better treatment for most are those whose GFR declines quickly. We don’t always know who they are until after the fact, and studies have been looking for markers that might prospectively identify them,” he said in an interview.

The new analysis showed that dapagliflozin “was effective in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, it didn’t matter if they had significant baseline disease or not. Even people with normal kidney function [at baseline] who were still fast decliners fared better with the drug than without it. This suggests that, if it can be confirmed in a prospective study, dapagliflozin might be effective very early in the course of treatment if we can identify who will be the fast decliners.”

Dr. Raz and his associates had the data necessary to calculate the rates of eGFR decline during the full follow-up period for 15,012 of the 17,160 patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58, and they found that 4,788 (32%) were fast decliners and 10,224 had a slower rate of renal deterioration. The average annual decline in eGFR during the period from 6 months after study entry through 4 years was 6.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (median of 5.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the fast decliners, and zero (median of 0.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the other patients.
 

Overcoming dapagliflozin’s initial eGFR reduction

The researchers focused on the 6-month to 4-year period of treatment as more representative of the impact of dapagliflozin because the SGLT2 inhibitors have an established pattern of triggering an initial, moderate decline in eGFR over roughly the first 6 months on the drug, which is similar to what happens to patients who start treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

“Some patients get as much as a 10% decline in eGFR” when SGLT2 inhibitor treatment starts, but “patients do better over time even with this initial hit,” the same way they do on drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system, explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University in New Haven who has extensively studied the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The analyses reported by Dr. Raz showed that the protection against fast decline during the 6-month to 4-year period with dapagliflozin treatment was consistent across a range of patient subgroups regardless of age, duration of their type 2 diabetes, their baseline level of hyperglycemia, and their baseline eGFR. Nearly half the patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58 had an eGFR at baseline of at least 91 mL/min per 1.73 m² and in this subgroup the incidence of fast decliners was 23% with dapagliflozin and 31% on placebo. Among the 45% of patients who began with an eGFR of 60-90 mL/min per 1.73 m² the fast-decliner incidence was 32% and 43% when on or off dapagliflozin. Among the 7% of patients who entered with an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the fast-decliner incidence was 25% on dapagliflozin and 36% among controls. All the between-group differences were statistically significant.

The incidence of fast decliners was also lower with dapagliflozin treatment when the analysis included the entire first 4 years on treatment, including the first 6 months when SGLT2s usually spikes a loss of renal function. For the entire 4-year period, fast decline occurred among 34% of patients on dapagliflozin and in 37% of control patients, a statistically significant difference.

The mechanisms behind the consistent renal-protective effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors remain unclear right now, but likely seem related to the “perfect” diuretic action the drugs produce, said Dr. Inzucchi. “They’re not as hugely effective as diuretics, but they’re gentler.” While the SGLT2 inhibitors cause a modest amount of fluid loss ”for some reason they don’t activate the compensatory mechanisms that prevent further reductions in plasma volume,” a property that manifests as little or no change in catecholamines or renin-angiotensin activity, which sets this diuretic action apart from what happens with conventional diuretic drugs, he said in an interview.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58 treatment with dapagliflozin met its primary safety outcome of noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. The results failed to show statistically significant superiority for one of the primary efficacy endpoints, the rate of major adverse coronary events, but they did show significantly better performance for the second primary efficacy outcome of the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 5.8% of the control patients during a median follow-up of 4.2 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57).

DECLARE-TIMI 58 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Raz has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as several other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and also to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Raz I et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 303-OR.

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin led to a significant drop in the occurrence of ‘fast decline’ of renal function in more than 15,000 patients enrolled in the drug’s main cardiovascular outcome trial, another example of the potent renal protective effects of agents from this drug class.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Among patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, the incidence of a fast decline in renal function, defined as a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 3 mL/min per 1.73 m², was 27% among patients treated with dapagliflozin and 37% in control patients who received placebo, a statistically significant difference for this post-hoc analysis, Itamar Raz, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

This finding, which adds to a long list of other renal function parameters reported to have been improved by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “emphasizes the value of SGLT2 inhibitors as an important component of both prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Raz, a diabetes researcher and professor of medicine at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.

The primary, prespecified renal outcomes in DECLARE-TIMI 58 were a cardiorenal composite outcome of sustained decline of at least 40% in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², end-stage renal disease (defined as dialysis for at least 90 days, kidney transplantation, or confirmed sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or death from renal or cardiovascular causes; and a second prespecified renal-specific composite outcome that was the same except for excluding death from cardiovascular causes. The results showed that the cardiorenal outcome dropped by a statistically significant 24% with dapagliflozin treatment relative to control patients, and the renal-specific outcome fell by a statistically significant 47% with dapagliflozin relative to control patients (Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1;7[8];606-17).

The new findings on the incidence of fast decline in renal function help to further flesh out the scope of renal benefit exerted by SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes, said experts. Fast decline is a relatively recently devised measure of a high-risk, precipitous loss of renal function that has been defined as a drop of either 3 or 5 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91[6]:1300-11); for this analysis Dr. Raz and his associates used the less stringent definition.
 

Finding and treating ‘fast decliners’

The new report from Dr. Raz “confirms the original [renal] findings and looks to expand them to a particularly high risk group: the fast decliners,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science & medical officer of the ADA. “In some ways, the group of patients that we need to find a better treatment for most are those whose GFR declines quickly. We don’t always know who they are until after the fact, and studies have been looking for markers that might prospectively identify them,” he said in an interview.

The new analysis showed that dapagliflozin “was effective in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, it didn’t matter if they had significant baseline disease or not. Even people with normal kidney function [at baseline] who were still fast decliners fared better with the drug than without it. This suggests that, if it can be confirmed in a prospective study, dapagliflozin might be effective very early in the course of treatment if we can identify who will be the fast decliners.”

Dr. Raz and his associates had the data necessary to calculate the rates of eGFR decline during the full follow-up period for 15,012 of the 17,160 patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58, and they found that 4,788 (32%) were fast decliners and 10,224 had a slower rate of renal deterioration. The average annual decline in eGFR during the period from 6 months after study entry through 4 years was 6.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (median of 5.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the fast decliners, and zero (median of 0.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the other patients.
 

Overcoming dapagliflozin’s initial eGFR reduction

The researchers focused on the 6-month to 4-year period of treatment as more representative of the impact of dapagliflozin because the SGLT2 inhibitors have an established pattern of triggering an initial, moderate decline in eGFR over roughly the first 6 months on the drug, which is similar to what happens to patients who start treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

“Some patients get as much as a 10% decline in eGFR” when SGLT2 inhibitor treatment starts, but “patients do better over time even with this initial hit,” the same way they do on drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system, explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University in New Haven who has extensively studied the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The analyses reported by Dr. Raz showed that the protection against fast decline during the 6-month to 4-year period with dapagliflozin treatment was consistent across a range of patient subgroups regardless of age, duration of their type 2 diabetes, their baseline level of hyperglycemia, and their baseline eGFR. Nearly half the patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58 had an eGFR at baseline of at least 91 mL/min per 1.73 m² and in this subgroup the incidence of fast decliners was 23% with dapagliflozin and 31% on placebo. Among the 45% of patients who began with an eGFR of 60-90 mL/min per 1.73 m² the fast-decliner incidence was 32% and 43% when on or off dapagliflozin. Among the 7% of patients who entered with an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the fast-decliner incidence was 25% on dapagliflozin and 36% among controls. All the between-group differences were statistically significant.

The incidence of fast decliners was also lower with dapagliflozin treatment when the analysis included the entire first 4 years on treatment, including the first 6 months when SGLT2s usually spikes a loss of renal function. For the entire 4-year period, fast decline occurred among 34% of patients on dapagliflozin and in 37% of control patients, a statistically significant difference.

The mechanisms behind the consistent renal-protective effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors remain unclear right now, but likely seem related to the “perfect” diuretic action the drugs produce, said Dr. Inzucchi. “They’re not as hugely effective as diuretics, but they’re gentler.” While the SGLT2 inhibitors cause a modest amount of fluid loss ”for some reason they don’t activate the compensatory mechanisms that prevent further reductions in plasma volume,” a property that manifests as little or no change in catecholamines or renin-angiotensin activity, which sets this diuretic action apart from what happens with conventional diuretic drugs, he said in an interview.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58 treatment with dapagliflozin met its primary safety outcome of noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. The results failed to show statistically significant superiority for one of the primary efficacy endpoints, the rate of major adverse coronary events, but they did show significantly better performance for the second primary efficacy outcome of the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 5.8% of the control patients during a median follow-up of 4.2 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57).

DECLARE-TIMI 58 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Raz has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as several other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and also to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Raz I et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 303-OR.

Treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin led to a significant drop in the occurrence of ‘fast decline’ of renal function in more than 15,000 patients enrolled in the drug’s main cardiovascular outcome trial, another example of the potent renal protective effects of agents from this drug class.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Among patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, the incidence of a fast decline in renal function, defined as a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 3 mL/min per 1.73 m², was 27% among patients treated with dapagliflozin and 37% in control patients who received placebo, a statistically significant difference for this post-hoc analysis, Itamar Raz, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

This finding, which adds to a long list of other renal function parameters reported to have been improved by treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “emphasizes the value of SGLT2 inhibitors as an important component of both prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Raz, a diabetes researcher and professor of medicine at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem.

The primary, prespecified renal outcomes in DECLARE-TIMI 58 were a cardiorenal composite outcome of sustained decline of at least 40% in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², end-stage renal disease (defined as dialysis for at least 90 days, kidney transplantation, or confirmed sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or death from renal or cardiovascular causes; and a second prespecified renal-specific composite outcome that was the same except for excluding death from cardiovascular causes. The results showed that the cardiorenal outcome dropped by a statistically significant 24% with dapagliflozin treatment relative to control patients, and the renal-specific outcome fell by a statistically significant 47% with dapagliflozin relative to control patients (Lancet Diab Endocrinol. 2019 Aug 1;7[8];606-17).

The new findings on the incidence of fast decline in renal function help to further flesh out the scope of renal benefit exerted by SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes, said experts. Fast decline is a relatively recently devised measure of a high-risk, precipitous loss of renal function that has been defined as a drop of either 3 or 5 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (Kidney Int. 2017 Jun;91[6]:1300-11); for this analysis Dr. Raz and his associates used the less stringent definition.
 

Finding and treating ‘fast decliners’

The new report from Dr. Raz “confirms the original [renal] findings and looks to expand them to a particularly high risk group: the fast decliners,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science & medical officer of the ADA. “In some ways, the group of patients that we need to find a better treatment for most are those whose GFR declines quickly. We don’t always know who they are until after the fact, and studies have been looking for markers that might prospectively identify them,” he said in an interview.

The new analysis showed that dapagliflozin “was effective in this subgroup of patients. Furthermore, it didn’t matter if they had significant baseline disease or not. Even people with normal kidney function [at baseline] who were still fast decliners fared better with the drug than without it. This suggests that, if it can be confirmed in a prospective study, dapagliflozin might be effective very early in the course of treatment if we can identify who will be the fast decliners.”

Dr. Raz and his associates had the data necessary to calculate the rates of eGFR decline during the full follow-up period for 15,012 of the 17,160 patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58, and they found that 4,788 (32%) were fast decliners and 10,224 had a slower rate of renal deterioration. The average annual decline in eGFR during the period from 6 months after study entry through 4 years was 6.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year (median of 5.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the fast decliners, and zero (median of 0.6 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year) among the other patients.
 

Overcoming dapagliflozin’s initial eGFR reduction

The researchers focused on the 6-month to 4-year period of treatment as more representative of the impact of dapagliflozin because the SGLT2 inhibitors have an established pattern of triggering an initial, moderate decline in eGFR over roughly the first 6 months on the drug, which is similar to what happens to patients who start treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

“Some patients get as much as a 10% decline in eGFR” when SGLT2 inhibitor treatment starts, but “patients do better over time even with this initial hit,” the same way they do on drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin system, explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Yale University in New Haven who has extensively studied the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The analyses reported by Dr. Raz showed that the protection against fast decline during the 6-month to 4-year period with dapagliflozin treatment was consistent across a range of patient subgroups regardless of age, duration of their type 2 diabetes, their baseline level of hyperglycemia, and their baseline eGFR. Nearly half the patients enrolled in DECLARE-TIMI 58 had an eGFR at baseline of at least 91 mL/min per 1.73 m² and in this subgroup the incidence of fast decliners was 23% with dapagliflozin and 31% on placebo. Among the 45% of patients who began with an eGFR of 60-90 mL/min per 1.73 m² the fast-decliner incidence was 32% and 43% when on or off dapagliflozin. Among the 7% of patients who entered with an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², the fast-decliner incidence was 25% on dapagliflozin and 36% among controls. All the between-group differences were statistically significant.

The incidence of fast decliners was also lower with dapagliflozin treatment when the analysis included the entire first 4 years on treatment, including the first 6 months when SGLT2s usually spikes a loss of renal function. For the entire 4-year period, fast decline occurred among 34% of patients on dapagliflozin and in 37% of control patients, a statistically significant difference.

The mechanisms behind the consistent renal-protective effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors remain unclear right now, but likely seem related to the “perfect” diuretic action the drugs produce, said Dr. Inzucchi. “They’re not as hugely effective as diuretics, but they’re gentler.” While the SGLT2 inhibitors cause a modest amount of fluid loss ”for some reason they don’t activate the compensatory mechanisms that prevent further reductions in plasma volume,” a property that manifests as little or no change in catecholamines or renin-angiotensin activity, which sets this diuretic action apart from what happens with conventional diuretic drugs, he said in an interview.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58 treatment with dapagliflozin met its primary safety outcome of noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. The results failed to show statistically significant superiority for one of the primary efficacy endpoints, the rate of major adverse coronary events, but they did show significantly better performance for the second primary efficacy outcome of the rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 5.8% of the control patients during a median follow-up of 4.2 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380[4]:347-57).

DECLARE-TIMI 58 was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Raz has been an advisor to and speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca as well as several other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and also to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Raz I et al. ADA 2020, Abstract 303-OR.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Use of a robotics platform provides a surgeon with more information so they can make better decisions, especially in challenging situations of primary and revisional bariatric surgery, according to Cheguevara Afaneh, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

“The value of modern technology is to be able to do the most difficult cases in a much simpler format,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Afaneh shared examples of how robotic assistance can help surgeons address challenges in bariatric surgery clinical practice, including managing super- and super-super-obese patients, dealing with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and negating the impact of surgical assistant experience.

“Super-obese patients pose more of a challenge interoperatively for both the surgeon and the assistant,” Dr. Afaneh noted. He and colleagues conducted a study of perioperative outcomes and found no significant differences between morbidly obese and super-obese patients in perioperative morbidity or operating time when a robotic platform was used.

The benefits to the surgeon when using robotic assistance in super-obese patients include effortless navigation of the abdominal wall, the ability to execute complex maneuvers in a challenging environment, and the security of a stable platform with no assistant fatigue, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “When you are using the robotic platform, you are negating a lot of the patient factors” and fatigue factors that make bariatric surgery in super-obese and super-super-obese patients especially difficult, he said.

For example, in a patient who weighed nearly 500 pounds, pulling up on the stomach to get behind the actual stomach is easier because assistant fatigue is not a factor, so the surgeon can take more time and prevent a more difficult dissection, he said. In addition, Dr. Afaneh’s research showed no difference in operative time, and that the robot assistance outcomes were reproducible across a range of body mass index categories.

Robotic assistance also allows for comparable outcomes in surgeons with less experience, notably in revisional surgery, said Dr. Afaneh. He reviewed data from his first year of experience in revisional procedures using robotic assistance to his partners’ more than 20 years of laparoscopic experience. He found no significant differences in operative time, complications, or conversions to open procedures.

However, the more important message from the study was that less experienced surgeons were able to safely perform some of the most difficult revisional procedures without increasing morbidity, compared with more experienced surgeons. The data suggest that, with robotic assistance, surgeons early in their career can take on some of the bigger cases and expect outcomes similar to those of more experienced surgeons, Dr. Afaneh said.

Robotics has demonstrated improved outcomes in managing patients with GERD, which has become a common problem after bariatric surgery, noted Dr. Afaneh. When he and his colleagues reviewed data from their center on robotic-assisted approaches to GERD after bariatric surgery, they found that, even in primary magnetic sphincter operations, “robotics maintains comparable outcomes in revisional sleeve gastrectomy fields,” he said.

Another notable benefit of robotics in bariatric surgery is the negation of the “assistant effect,” said Dr. Afaneh. Often, less experienced surgeons are matched with less experienced assistants. “We took a look at the use of the robotic in cases of complex GI surgeries,” he said. They compared laparoscopic and robotic cases and stratified them by third-year assistant or fellow. “If you had a fellow, the operative time dropped by half an hour for laparoscopic cases, but the time was no different in robotics cases,” regardless of the use of fellow or third-year assistant, he said.

“The robotic platform allows you to assist yourself,” and allows for full surgeon autonomy, Dr. Afaneh emphasized. “You are the best person at predicting your next step.” The robotics platform also serves as a teaching tool. “For those who teach, there is no added morbidity based on the assistance of the trainee,” he said. In addition, the improved visualization of robotics “allows for better appreciation of scarred tissue planes and more precise suturing,” he noted.

Overall, “one of the values of the robotic platform is shortening the learning curve,” Dr. Afaneh said. He reviewed data from his fellows and himself, and found no difference in operative times. “My mentee was able to achieve operative times as good as my third year in practice. The robotic platform shaved off several years of learning experience,” he said. Dr. Afaneh’s operative times also decreased with robotics, which shows how experienced surgeons learn from this technology, he said.

Dr. Afaneh disclosed serving as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Patients who underwent conversion to a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy after a previous laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding procedure experienced similar weight loss with either a one- or two-step procedure, a study of 78 patients showed.

“Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) has largely fallen out of favor, likely related to variable efficacy in weight reduction coupled with poor effectiveness in reducing obesity related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia,” Vasu Chirumamilla, MD, of Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y., and colleagues wrote in a poster presented at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

LAGB also can cause complications including, slippage, erosion, and gastric pouch dilation; subsequently many patients undergo conversion to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). However, the impact of a one-step vs. two-step conversion procedure on patient weight loss remains unclear, the researchers said.

To compare weight loss after the two types of procedures, the researchers reviewed data from 78 patients (71 women) aged 15-74 years treated between 2013 and 2018 at a multi-surgeon, private practice bariatric surgery center. All patients had a history of LAGB; 31 underwent conversion to LSG in one stage, and 47 underwent conversion in two stages. Weight loss, defined as the percentage excess weight loss, was the primary endpoint.

The average excess weight loss was 44% for patients in both the one-stage and two-stage groups, and body mass index decreased by 8.9 points and 8.8 points, respectively, in the two groups, the researchers wrote.

Patients in the two-stage group experienced a significant increase in body mass index (P = .008) during the time between band removal to sleeve gastrectomy, which was an average of 207 days, they said.

The findings were limited in part by the small sample size and retrospective design, and more data are needed to compare complication rates in one-stage and two-stage procedures, the researchers noted. However, the results showed “no difference in excess weight loss in patients converted from laparoscopic adjustable gastric band to sleeve gastrectomy in one-stage versus a two-stage procedure,” they concluded.

“LAGB used to be a very popular weight loss procedure – bands were placed in a great deal of patients,” Dr. Chirumamilla said in an interview. “Now those patients are presenting with increasing frequency to bariatric surgeons with band complications or weight regain. The volume for LSG is increasing and results in percentage excess weight loss of approximately 65% versus approximately 42% for LAGB,” he said. A goal of the study was to provide patients and the surgeons with a more informed approach to performing and consenting to the particular operation, he added.

“The results have not surprised us, because as long as done by experienced surgeons on compliant patients the weight loss outcomes from the day of surgery onward should be equivalent,” Dr. Chirumamilla explained. “We were also not surprised to find that patients undergoing a two-stage conversion gained weight before their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy.”

The bottom line for clinicians is that “patients getting a conversion from band to sleeve in one-stage versus two-stages experience the same percentage excess body weight loss from time of surgery,” although two-stage patients do gain weight while awaiting their second-stage sleeve gastrectomy, Dr. Chirumamilla said.

“More research is needed to compare short- and long-term complications rates between one-stage and two-stage conversions. The ideal research situation would be a randomized, multicenter, large volume study to reduce bias,” he noted.

Dr. Chirumamilla’s collaborators included Akia Caine MD, Zachary Ballinger, Rebecca Castro, Thomas Cerabona MD, and Ashutosh Kaul MD, of the surgical group Advanced Surgeons at nygetfit.com.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Chirumamilla V et al. MISS 2020. Poster PA-14.

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

The Abbott FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system significantly reduced hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), diabetes-related emergencies, and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with diabetes, data from two new studies indicate.

The results were presented June 13 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

One large database analysis, from France, revealed that use of the Libre system halved hospitalization rates for DKA among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

In the other study, a retrospective analysis of data from over 1200 insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States, use of the Libre was associated with significant reductions in both hospitalizations for acute diabetes-related emergency events and all-cause hospitalizations.

The Libre system reads glucose levels through a sensor worn on the back of the upper arm for up to 14 days. Users wave a scanner over the device to obtain a reading.

Asked to comment, Nicholas Argento, MD, diabetes technology director at Maryland Endocrine and Diabetes, Columbia, told Medscape Medical News: “One of the biggest problems with access to continuous glucose monitoring is cost. Payers need to see that there’s some cost-saving to offset the cost of paying for these devices. I think both of these studies are important for that reason.”

However, Argento also said he recommends that people with type 1 diabetes use the Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) if possible rather than the Libre, despite the former’s higher cost, because it has an alarm feature that the Libre doesn’t and is more accurate in the hypoglycemic range.

Large French study: Libre cuts DKA hospitalizations by 50%

The FreeStyle Libre system has been reimbursed in France since June 1, 2017 for patients over 4 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who take at least 3 insulin injections per day or use an insulin pump.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The new results were presented by Ronan Roussel, MD, PhD, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition department at Hôpital Bichat, Fédération de Diabétologie, AP-HP, Paris, France.

The DKA hospitalization data Roussel reported were part of a larger longitudinal retrospective cohort study looking at overall prescribing and use of the Libre system, and its impact on healthcare outcomes and associated costs in standard practice in France. The data came from a large nationwide claims database containing all healthcare expenses for over 66 million people.

The current study participants were 74,076 individuals with at least a full year of follow-up beginning in 2017 with the date of first reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system. Of those, 44.8% (33,203) had type 1 diabetes and 55.2% (40,955) had type 2 diabetes.

Prior to initiation of Libre use, about a quarter of each group was using 0 fingerstick test strips per day, about 19% of the type 1 diabetes group and 28% of the type 2 diabetes group were using 1-3 strips per day, and about half of both groups were using 4 or more strips per day.

Compared with the year prior to the date of first reimbursement for the Libre, hospitalization rates for DKA during the first year of Libre use fell by 52% in the type 1 diabetes group, from 5.46 to 2.59 per 100 patient-years, and by 47% in the type 2 diabetes group, from 1.70 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years.

The impact of Libre on DKA hospitalizations was most dramatic among those not using any test strips prior to Libre use, with a 60% reduction for the type 1 diabetes group (8.31 to 3.31 per 100 patient-years) and a 51% reduction in the type 2 diabetes group (2.51 to 1.23 per 100 patient-years).

But interestingly, the next-biggest impact was among those who had been using more than 5 test strips per day, with drops of 59% among those with type 1 diabetes (5.55 to 2.26 per 100 patient-years) and 52% in the type 2 diabetes group (1.88 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years).

This finding is important for the United States, Argento said, because some insurers, including Medicare, require that the patient performs at least 4 fingerstick glucose measurements per day to qualify for reimbursement for the Libre or any CGM system.

“I think that speaks to the importance of not requiring that patients first show they’re frequently doing self-blood glucose monitoring before they can get these devices,” he observed.

The large benefit in the high strip use group is interesting too, Argento said. “It’s a different group of people. They’re more engaged in their care...This U-shaped curve they showed is fascinating.”

Reductions in DKA hospitalizations were also similar between patients using insulin pumps and those using multiple daily injections of insulin, Roussel reported.

“It is plausible that use of the FreeStyle Libre system allowed people to detect and limit persistent hyperglycemia, and subsequently ketoacidosis,” Roussel said.

“This analysis has significant implications for patient-centered clinical care in diabetes and also for long-term health economic outcomes in the treatment of diabetes at a national level.”

All-cause hospitalizations drop 30% with Libre in type 2 diabetes

Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, presented the US results, obtained from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan, a database of commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance claims for over 30 million Americans.

The study population included 2463 patients with type 2 diabetes using basal-bolus daily insulin injections but who had not previously used Libre or any other CGM, and for whom data were available 6 months prior to and after Libre initiation.

Compared with 6 months prior to Libre use, the number of acute diabetes-related events — including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, DKA, hypoglycemic coma, and hyperosmolarity — in the subsequent 6 months dropped by 60%, from 0.180 to 0.072 events per patient-year (P < .001).

Similarly significant reductions were seen between males and females, and among those aged ≥ 50 years or < 50 years.

All-cause hospitalizations also significantly dropped by 33% (P < 0.001), from 0.420 to 0.283 events per patient-year. Among diagnostic codes for the hospitalizations, circulatory system causes remained number one during both time periods, with little change from pre-Libre to during Libre use.

However, “endocrine, nutritional, and metabolism system” codes dropped from the second position pre-Libre (6.4 events/100 patient-years) down to the fifth position (2.6 events/100 patient-years).

And, Bergenstal noted, other major diagnostic categories that also dropped included respiratory (3.5 to 2.1 events/100 patient-years), kidney and urinary tract (3.3 to 1.7 events/100 patient-years), and hepatobiliary system and pancreas (2.4 to 1.4 events/100 patient-years).

“We’re seeing a resurgence of certain types of complications, but all of these were reduced in the 6 months after Libre,” Bergenstal pointed out.

And, pertinent to the current COVID-19 situation, “infectious and parasitic disease and disorders” dropped as well, from 4.8 to 2.8 per 100 patient-years.

Argento commented: “The fact that infections went down speaks to something that is important right now. Hyperglycemia impairs immune function chronically, but also acutely...so patients who become ill and their blood glucose deteriorates rapidly are much more likely to have a poor outcome regardless of infection. There are data for COVID-19 now.”

“These findings provide compelling support for use of [Libre] to improve both clinical outcomes and potentially reduce costs in this patient population,” Bergenstal concluded.

Roussel has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Diabnext, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Bergenstal has reported being a consultant for Ascensia Diabetes Care, Johnson & Johnson, and has other relationships with Abbott, Dexcom, Hygieia, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and UnitedHealth Group. Argento has reported consulting and being on speaker bureaus for Omnipod, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

The Abbott FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system significantly reduced hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), diabetes-related emergencies, and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with diabetes, data from two new studies indicate.

The results were presented June 13 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

One large database analysis, from France, revealed that use of the Libre system halved hospitalization rates for DKA among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

In the other study, a retrospective analysis of data from over 1200 insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States, use of the Libre was associated with significant reductions in both hospitalizations for acute diabetes-related emergency events and all-cause hospitalizations.

The Libre system reads glucose levels through a sensor worn on the back of the upper arm for up to 14 days. Users wave a scanner over the device to obtain a reading.

Asked to comment, Nicholas Argento, MD, diabetes technology director at Maryland Endocrine and Diabetes, Columbia, told Medscape Medical News: “One of the biggest problems with access to continuous glucose monitoring is cost. Payers need to see that there’s some cost-saving to offset the cost of paying for these devices. I think both of these studies are important for that reason.”

However, Argento also said he recommends that people with type 1 diabetes use the Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) if possible rather than the Libre, despite the former’s higher cost, because it has an alarm feature that the Libre doesn’t and is more accurate in the hypoglycemic range.

Large French study: Libre cuts DKA hospitalizations by 50%

The FreeStyle Libre system has been reimbursed in France since June 1, 2017 for patients over 4 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who take at least 3 insulin injections per day or use an insulin pump.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The new results were presented by Ronan Roussel, MD, PhD, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition department at Hôpital Bichat, Fédération de Diabétologie, AP-HP, Paris, France.

The DKA hospitalization data Roussel reported were part of a larger longitudinal retrospective cohort study looking at overall prescribing and use of the Libre system, and its impact on healthcare outcomes and associated costs in standard practice in France. The data came from a large nationwide claims database containing all healthcare expenses for over 66 million people.

The current study participants were 74,076 individuals with at least a full year of follow-up beginning in 2017 with the date of first reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system. Of those, 44.8% (33,203) had type 1 diabetes and 55.2% (40,955) had type 2 diabetes.

Prior to initiation of Libre use, about a quarter of each group was using 0 fingerstick test strips per day, about 19% of the type 1 diabetes group and 28% of the type 2 diabetes group were using 1-3 strips per day, and about half of both groups were using 4 or more strips per day.

Compared with the year prior to the date of first reimbursement for the Libre, hospitalization rates for DKA during the first year of Libre use fell by 52% in the type 1 diabetes group, from 5.46 to 2.59 per 100 patient-years, and by 47% in the type 2 diabetes group, from 1.70 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years.

The impact of Libre on DKA hospitalizations was most dramatic among those not using any test strips prior to Libre use, with a 60% reduction for the type 1 diabetes group (8.31 to 3.31 per 100 patient-years) and a 51% reduction in the type 2 diabetes group (2.51 to 1.23 per 100 patient-years).

But interestingly, the next-biggest impact was among those who had been using more than 5 test strips per day, with drops of 59% among those with type 1 diabetes (5.55 to 2.26 per 100 patient-years) and 52% in the type 2 diabetes group (1.88 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years).

This finding is important for the United States, Argento said, because some insurers, including Medicare, require that the patient performs at least 4 fingerstick glucose measurements per day to qualify for reimbursement for the Libre or any CGM system.

“I think that speaks to the importance of not requiring that patients first show they’re frequently doing self-blood glucose monitoring before they can get these devices,” he observed.

The large benefit in the high strip use group is interesting too, Argento said. “It’s a different group of people. They’re more engaged in their care...This U-shaped curve they showed is fascinating.”

Reductions in DKA hospitalizations were also similar between patients using insulin pumps and those using multiple daily injections of insulin, Roussel reported.

“It is plausible that use of the FreeStyle Libre system allowed people to detect and limit persistent hyperglycemia, and subsequently ketoacidosis,” Roussel said.

“This analysis has significant implications for patient-centered clinical care in diabetes and also for long-term health economic outcomes in the treatment of diabetes at a national level.”

All-cause hospitalizations drop 30% with Libre in type 2 diabetes

Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, presented the US results, obtained from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan, a database of commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance claims for over 30 million Americans.

The study population included 2463 patients with type 2 diabetes using basal-bolus daily insulin injections but who had not previously used Libre or any other CGM, and for whom data were available 6 months prior to and after Libre initiation.

Compared with 6 months prior to Libre use, the number of acute diabetes-related events — including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, DKA, hypoglycemic coma, and hyperosmolarity — in the subsequent 6 months dropped by 60%, from 0.180 to 0.072 events per patient-year (P < .001).

Similarly significant reductions were seen between males and females, and among those aged ≥ 50 years or < 50 years.

All-cause hospitalizations also significantly dropped by 33% (P < 0.001), from 0.420 to 0.283 events per patient-year. Among diagnostic codes for the hospitalizations, circulatory system causes remained number one during both time periods, with little change from pre-Libre to during Libre use.

However, “endocrine, nutritional, and metabolism system” codes dropped from the second position pre-Libre (6.4 events/100 patient-years) down to the fifth position (2.6 events/100 patient-years).

And, Bergenstal noted, other major diagnostic categories that also dropped included respiratory (3.5 to 2.1 events/100 patient-years), kidney and urinary tract (3.3 to 1.7 events/100 patient-years), and hepatobiliary system and pancreas (2.4 to 1.4 events/100 patient-years).

“We’re seeing a resurgence of certain types of complications, but all of these were reduced in the 6 months after Libre,” Bergenstal pointed out.

And, pertinent to the current COVID-19 situation, “infectious and parasitic disease and disorders” dropped as well, from 4.8 to 2.8 per 100 patient-years.

Argento commented: “The fact that infections went down speaks to something that is important right now. Hyperglycemia impairs immune function chronically, but also acutely...so patients who become ill and their blood glucose deteriorates rapidly are much more likely to have a poor outcome regardless of infection. There are data for COVID-19 now.”

“These findings provide compelling support for use of [Libre] to improve both clinical outcomes and potentially reduce costs in this patient population,” Bergenstal concluded.

Roussel has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Diabnext, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Bergenstal has reported being a consultant for Ascensia Diabetes Care, Johnson & Johnson, and has other relationships with Abbott, Dexcom, Hygieia, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and UnitedHealth Group. Argento has reported consulting and being on speaker bureaus for Omnipod, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

The Abbott FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring system significantly reduced hospitalizations for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), diabetes-related emergencies, and all-cause hospitalizations among patients with diabetes, data from two new studies indicate.

The results were presented June 13 during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions.

One large database analysis, from France, revealed that use of the Libre system halved hospitalization rates for DKA among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

In the other study, a retrospective analysis of data from over 1200 insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes in the United States, use of the Libre was associated with significant reductions in both hospitalizations for acute diabetes-related emergency events and all-cause hospitalizations.

The Libre system reads glucose levels through a sensor worn on the back of the upper arm for up to 14 days. Users wave a scanner over the device to obtain a reading.

Asked to comment, Nicholas Argento, MD, diabetes technology director at Maryland Endocrine and Diabetes, Columbia, told Medscape Medical News: “One of the biggest problems with access to continuous glucose monitoring is cost. Payers need to see that there’s some cost-saving to offset the cost of paying for these devices. I think both of these studies are important for that reason.”

However, Argento also said he recommends that people with type 1 diabetes use the Dexcom continuous glucose monitor (CGM) if possible rather than the Libre, despite the former’s higher cost, because it has an alarm feature that the Libre doesn’t and is more accurate in the hypoglycemic range.

Large French study: Libre cuts DKA hospitalizations by 50%

The FreeStyle Libre system has been reimbursed in France since June 1, 2017 for patients over 4 years of age with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who take at least 3 insulin injections per day or use an insulin pump.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The new results were presented by Ronan Roussel, MD, PhD, chief of the endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition department at Hôpital Bichat, Fédération de Diabétologie, AP-HP, Paris, France.

The DKA hospitalization data Roussel reported were part of a larger longitudinal retrospective cohort study looking at overall prescribing and use of the Libre system, and its impact on healthcare outcomes and associated costs in standard practice in France. The data came from a large nationwide claims database containing all healthcare expenses for over 66 million people.

The current study participants were 74,076 individuals with at least a full year of follow-up beginning in 2017 with the date of first reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system. Of those, 44.8% (33,203) had type 1 diabetes and 55.2% (40,955) had type 2 diabetes.

Prior to initiation of Libre use, about a quarter of each group was using 0 fingerstick test strips per day, about 19% of the type 1 diabetes group and 28% of the type 2 diabetes group were using 1-3 strips per day, and about half of both groups were using 4 or more strips per day.

Compared with the year prior to the date of first reimbursement for the Libre, hospitalization rates for DKA during the first year of Libre use fell by 52% in the type 1 diabetes group, from 5.46 to 2.59 per 100 patient-years, and by 47% in the type 2 diabetes group, from 1.70 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years.

The impact of Libre on DKA hospitalizations was most dramatic among those not using any test strips prior to Libre use, with a 60% reduction for the type 1 diabetes group (8.31 to 3.31 per 100 patient-years) and a 51% reduction in the type 2 diabetes group (2.51 to 1.23 per 100 patient-years).

But interestingly, the next-biggest impact was among those who had been using more than 5 test strips per day, with drops of 59% among those with type 1 diabetes (5.55 to 2.26 per 100 patient-years) and 52% in the type 2 diabetes group (1.88 to 0.90 per 100 patient-years).

This finding is important for the United States, Argento said, because some insurers, including Medicare, require that the patient performs at least 4 fingerstick glucose measurements per day to qualify for reimbursement for the Libre or any CGM system.

“I think that speaks to the importance of not requiring that patients first show they’re frequently doing self-blood glucose monitoring before they can get these devices,” he observed.

The large benefit in the high strip use group is interesting too, Argento said. “It’s a different group of people. They’re more engaged in their care...This U-shaped curve they showed is fascinating.”

Reductions in DKA hospitalizations were also similar between patients using insulin pumps and those using multiple daily injections of insulin, Roussel reported.

“It is plausible that use of the FreeStyle Libre system allowed people to detect and limit persistent hyperglycemia, and subsequently ketoacidosis,” Roussel said.

“This analysis has significant implications for patient-centered clinical care in diabetes and also for long-term health economic outcomes in the treatment of diabetes at a national level.”

All-cause hospitalizations drop 30% with Libre in type 2 diabetes

Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, executive director of the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota, presented the US results, obtained from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan, a database of commercial and Medicare supplemental insurance claims for over 30 million Americans.

The study population included 2463 patients with type 2 diabetes using basal-bolus daily insulin injections but who had not previously used Libre or any other CGM, and for whom data were available 6 months prior to and after Libre initiation.

Compared with 6 months prior to Libre use, the number of acute diabetes-related events — including hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, DKA, hypoglycemic coma, and hyperosmolarity — in the subsequent 6 months dropped by 60%, from 0.180 to 0.072 events per patient-year (P < .001).

Similarly significant reductions were seen between males and females, and among those aged ≥ 50 years or < 50 years.

All-cause hospitalizations also significantly dropped by 33% (P < 0.001), from 0.420 to 0.283 events per patient-year. Among diagnostic codes for the hospitalizations, circulatory system causes remained number one during both time periods, with little change from pre-Libre to during Libre use.

However, “endocrine, nutritional, and metabolism system” codes dropped from the second position pre-Libre (6.4 events/100 patient-years) down to the fifth position (2.6 events/100 patient-years).

And, Bergenstal noted, other major diagnostic categories that also dropped included respiratory (3.5 to 2.1 events/100 patient-years), kidney and urinary tract (3.3 to 1.7 events/100 patient-years), and hepatobiliary system and pancreas (2.4 to 1.4 events/100 patient-years).

“We’re seeing a resurgence of certain types of complications, but all of these were reduced in the 6 months after Libre,” Bergenstal pointed out.

And, pertinent to the current COVID-19 situation, “infectious and parasitic disease and disorders” dropped as well, from 4.8 to 2.8 per 100 patient-years.

Argento commented: “The fact that infections went down speaks to something that is important right now. Hyperglycemia impairs immune function chronically, but also acutely...so patients who become ill and their blood glucose deteriorates rapidly are much more likely to have a poor outcome regardless of infection. There are data for COVID-19 now.”

“These findings provide compelling support for use of [Libre] to improve both clinical outcomes and potentially reduce costs in this patient population,” Bergenstal concluded.

Roussel has reported being on advisory panels for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Diabnext, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. Bergenstal has reported being a consultant for Ascensia Diabetes Care, Johnson & Johnson, and has other relationships with Abbott, Dexcom, Hygieia, Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Onduo, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi, and UnitedHealth Group. Argento has reported consulting and being on speaker bureaus for Omnipod, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.