Diabetes Hub

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Early postpartum glucose tolerance testing for women with gestational diabetes resulted in a 99% adherence rate, with similar sensitivity and specificity as the currently recommended 4- to 12-week postpartum testing schedule.

“Two-day postpartum glucose tolerance testing has similar diagnostic utility as the 4- to 12-week postpartum glucose tolerance test to identify impaired glucose metabolism and diabetes at 1 year postpartum,” said Erika Werner, MD, speaking at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Overall, 29% of women studied had impaired glucose metabolism at 2 days postpartum, as did 25% in the 4- to 12-weeks postpartum window. At 1 year, that figure was 35%. The number of women meeting diagnostic criteria for diabetes held steady at 4% for all three time points.

The findings warrant “consideration for the 2-day postpartum glucose tolerance test (GTT) as the initial postpartum test for women who have gestational diabetes, with repeat testing at 1 year,” said Dr. Werner, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Glucose testing for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is recommended at 4-12 weeks postpartum by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Testing can allow detection and treatment of impaired glucose metabolism, seen in 15%-40% of women with a history of GDM. Up to 1 in 20 women with GDM will receive a postpartum diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

However, fewer than one in five women will actually have postpartum glucose testing, representing a large missed opportunity, said Dr. Werner.

Several factors likely contribute to those screening failures, she added. In addition to the potential for public insurance to lapse at 6 weeks postpartum, the logistical realities and time demands of parenting a newborn are themselves a significant barrier.

“What if we changed the timing?” and shifted glucose testing to the early postpartum days, before hospital discharge, asked Dr. Werner. Several pilot studies had already compared glucose screening in the first few days postpartum with the routine schedule, finding good correlation between the early and routine GTT schedule.

Importantly, the earlier studies achieved an adherence rate of more than 90% for early GTT. By contrast, fewer than half of the participants in the usual-care arms actually returned for postpartum GTT in the 4- to 12-week postpartum window, even under the optimized conditions associated with a medical study.

The single-center prospective cohort study conducted by Dr. Werner and collaborators enrolled 300 women with GDM. Women agreed to participate in glucose tolerance testing as inpatients, at 2 days postpartum, in addition to receiving a GTT between 4 and 12 weeks postpartum, and additional screening that included a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) test at 1 year postpartum.

The investigators obtained postpartum day 2 GTTs for all but four of the patients. A total of 201 patients returned in the 4- to 12-week postpartum window, and 168 of those participants returned for HbA1c testing at 1 year. Of the 95 patients who didn’t come back for the 4- to 12-week test, 33 did return at 1 year for HbA_1c testing.

Dr. Werner and her coinvestigators included adult women who spoke either fluent Spanish or English and had GDM diagnosed by the Carpenter-Coustan criteria, or by having a blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or more in a 1-hour glucose challenge test.

The early GTT results weren’t shared with patients or their health care providers. For outpatient visits, participants were offered financial incentives and received multiple reminder phone calls and the offer of free transportation.

For the purposes of the study, impaired glucose metabolism was defined as fasting blood glucose of 100 mg/dL or greater, a 2-hour GTT blood glucose level of 140 mg/dL or greater, or HbA_1c of 5.7% or greater.

Participants were diagnosed with diabetes if they had a fasting blood glucose of 126 mg/dL or greater, a 2-hour GTT blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or greater, or HbA_1c of 6.5% or greater.

Dr. Werner and colleagues conducted two analyses of their results. In the first, they included only women in both arms who had complete data. In the second analysis, they looked at all women who had data for the 1-year postpartum mark, assuming that interval GTTs were negative for women who were missing these values.

The statistical analysis showed that, for women with complete data, both early and later postpartum GTTs were similar in predicting impaired glucose metabolism at 1 year postpartum (areas under the receiver operating curve [AUC], 0.63 and 0.60, respectively).

For identifying diabetes at 1 year, both early and late testing had high negative predictive value (98% and 99%, respectively), but the later testing strategy had higher sensitivity and specificity, yielding an AUC of 0.83, compared with 0.65 for early testing.

Turning to the second analysis that included all women who had 1-year postpartum HbA_1c values, negative predictive values for diabetes were similarly high (98%) for both the early and late testing strategies. For identifying impaired glucose metabolism at 1 year in this group, both the positive and negative predictive value of the early and late strategies were similar.

Patients were about 32 years old at baseline, with a mean body mass index of 31.7 kg/m². More than half of patients (52.3%) had private insurance, and 22% had GDM in a pregnancy prior to the index pregnancy. Black patients made up about 9% of the study population; 54% of participants were white, and 23% Hispanic. About one-third of patients were nulliparous, and two-thirds had education beyond high school.

During their pregnancies, about 44% of patients managed GDM by diet alone, 40% required insulin, with an additional 1% also requiring an oral agent. The remainder required oral agents alone. Patients delivered at a mean 38.3 weeks gestation, with about 40% receiving cesarean deliveries.

Some of the study’s strengths included its prospective nature, the diverse population recruited, and the fact that participants and providers were both blinded to the 2-day GTT results. Although more than half of participants completed the study – besting the previous pilots – 44% of patients still had incomplete data, noted Dr. Werner.

The American Diabetes Association sponsored the study. Dr. Werner reported no other conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Werner E et al. SMFM 2020. Abstract 72.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Early postpartum glucose tolerance testing for women with gestational diabetes resulted in a 99% adherence rate, with similar sensitivity and specificity as the currently recommended 4- to 12-week postpartum testing schedule.

“Two-day postpartum glucose tolerance testing has similar diagnostic utility as the 4- to 12-week postpartum glucose tolerance test to identify impaired glucose metabolism and diabetes at 1 year postpartum,” said Erika Werner, MD, speaking at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Overall, 29% of women studied had impaired glucose metabolism at 2 days postpartum, as did 25% in the 4- to 12-weeks postpartum window. At 1 year, that figure was 35%. The number of women meeting diagnostic criteria for diabetes held steady at 4% for all three time points.

The findings warrant “consideration for the 2-day postpartum glucose tolerance test (GTT) as the initial postpartum test for women who have gestational diabetes, with repeat testing at 1 year,” said Dr. Werner, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Glucose testing for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is recommended at 4-12 weeks postpartum by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Testing can allow detection and treatment of impaired glucose metabolism, seen in 15%-40% of women with a history of GDM. Up to 1 in 20 women with GDM will receive a postpartum diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

However, fewer than one in five women will actually have postpartum glucose testing, representing a large missed opportunity, said Dr. Werner.

Several factors likely contribute to those screening failures, she added. In addition to the potential for public insurance to lapse at 6 weeks postpartum, the logistical realities and time demands of parenting a newborn are themselves a significant barrier.

“What if we changed the timing?” and shifted glucose testing to the early postpartum days, before hospital discharge, asked Dr. Werner. Several pilot studies had already compared glucose screening in the first few days postpartum with the routine schedule, finding good correlation between the early and routine GTT schedule.

Importantly, the earlier studies achieved an adherence rate of more than 90% for early GTT. By contrast, fewer than half of the participants in the usual-care arms actually returned for postpartum GTT in the 4- to 12-week postpartum window, even under the optimized conditions associated with a medical study.

The single-center prospective cohort study conducted by Dr. Werner and collaborators enrolled 300 women with GDM. Women agreed to participate in glucose tolerance testing as inpatients, at 2 days postpartum, in addition to receiving a GTT between 4 and 12 weeks postpartum, and additional screening that included a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) test at 1 year postpartum.

The investigators obtained postpartum day 2 GTTs for all but four of the patients. A total of 201 patients returned in the 4- to 12-week postpartum window, and 168 of those participants returned for HbA1c testing at 1 year. Of the 95 patients who didn’t come back for the 4- to 12-week test, 33 did return at 1 year for HbA_1c testing.

Dr. Werner and her coinvestigators included adult women who spoke either fluent Spanish or English and had GDM diagnosed by the Carpenter-Coustan criteria, or by having a blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or more in a 1-hour glucose challenge test.

The early GTT results weren’t shared with patients or their health care providers. For outpatient visits, participants were offered financial incentives and received multiple reminder phone calls and the offer of free transportation.

For the purposes of the study, impaired glucose metabolism was defined as fasting blood glucose of 100 mg/dL or greater, a 2-hour GTT blood glucose level of 140 mg/dL or greater, or HbA_1c of 5.7% or greater.

Participants were diagnosed with diabetes if they had a fasting blood glucose of 126 mg/dL or greater, a 2-hour GTT blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or greater, or HbA_1c of 6.5% or greater.

Dr. Werner and colleagues conducted two analyses of their results. In the first, they included only women in both arms who had complete data. In the second analysis, they looked at all women who had data for the 1-year postpartum mark, assuming that interval GTTs were negative for women who were missing these values.

The statistical analysis showed that, for women with complete data, both early and later postpartum GTTs were similar in predicting impaired glucose metabolism at 1 year postpartum (areas under the receiver operating curve [AUC], 0.63 and 0.60, respectively).

For identifying diabetes at 1 year, both early and late testing had high negative predictive value (98% and 99%, respectively), but the later testing strategy had higher sensitivity and specificity, yielding an AUC of 0.83, compared with 0.65 for early testing.

Turning to the second analysis that included all women who had 1-year postpartum HbA_1c values, negative predictive values for diabetes were similarly high (98%) for both the early and late testing strategies. For identifying impaired glucose metabolism at 1 year in this group, both the positive and negative predictive value of the early and late strategies were similar.

Patients were about 32 years old at baseline, with a mean body mass index of 31.7 kg/m². More than half of patients (52.3%) had private insurance, and 22% had GDM in a pregnancy prior to the index pregnancy. Black patients made up about 9% of the study population; 54% of participants were white, and 23% Hispanic. About one-third of patients were nulliparous, and two-thirds had education beyond high school.

During their pregnancies, about 44% of patients managed GDM by diet alone, 40% required insulin, with an additional 1% also requiring an oral agent. The remainder required oral agents alone. Patients delivered at a mean 38.3 weeks gestation, with about 40% receiving cesarean deliveries.

Some of the study’s strengths included its prospective nature, the diverse population recruited, and the fact that participants and providers were both blinded to the 2-day GTT results. Although more than half of participants completed the study – besting the previous pilots – 44% of patients still had incomplete data, noted Dr. Werner.

The American Diabetes Association sponsored the study. Dr. Werner reported no other conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Werner E et al. SMFM 2020. Abstract 72.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Early postpartum glucose tolerance testing for women with gestational diabetes resulted in a 99% adherence rate, with similar sensitivity and specificity as the currently recommended 4- to 12-week postpartum testing schedule.

“Two-day postpartum glucose tolerance testing has similar diagnostic utility as the 4- to 12-week postpartum glucose tolerance test to identify impaired glucose metabolism and diabetes at 1 year postpartum,” said Erika Werner, MD, speaking at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Overall, 29% of women studied had impaired glucose metabolism at 2 days postpartum, as did 25% in the 4- to 12-weeks postpartum window. At 1 year, that figure was 35%. The number of women meeting diagnostic criteria for diabetes held steady at 4% for all three time points.

The findings warrant “consideration for the 2-day postpartum glucose tolerance test (GTT) as the initial postpartum test for women who have gestational diabetes, with repeat testing at 1 year,” said Dr. Werner, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Glucose testing for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is recommended at 4-12 weeks postpartum by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Testing can allow detection and treatment of impaired glucose metabolism, seen in 15%-40% of women with a history of GDM. Up to 1 in 20 women with GDM will receive a postpartum diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

However, fewer than one in five women will actually have postpartum glucose testing, representing a large missed opportunity, said Dr. Werner.

Several factors likely contribute to those screening failures, she added. In addition to the potential for public insurance to lapse at 6 weeks postpartum, the logistical realities and time demands of parenting a newborn are themselves a significant barrier.

“What if we changed the timing?” and shifted glucose testing to the early postpartum days, before hospital discharge, asked Dr. Werner. Several pilot studies had already compared glucose screening in the first few days postpartum with the routine schedule, finding good correlation between the early and routine GTT schedule.

Importantly, the earlier studies achieved an adherence rate of more than 90% for early GTT. By contrast, fewer than half of the participants in the usual-care arms actually returned for postpartum GTT in the 4- to 12-week postpartum window, even under the optimized conditions associated with a medical study.

The single-center prospective cohort study conducted by Dr. Werner and collaborators enrolled 300 women with GDM. Women agreed to participate in glucose tolerance testing as inpatients, at 2 days postpartum, in addition to receiving a GTT between 4 and 12 weeks postpartum, and additional screening that included a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) test at 1 year postpartum.

The investigators obtained postpartum day 2 GTTs for all but four of the patients. A total of 201 patients returned in the 4- to 12-week postpartum window, and 168 of those participants returned for HbA1c testing at 1 year. Of the 95 patients who didn’t come back for the 4- to 12-week test, 33 did return at 1 year for HbA_1c testing.

Dr. Werner and her coinvestigators included adult women who spoke either fluent Spanish or English and had GDM diagnosed by the Carpenter-Coustan criteria, or by having a blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or more in a 1-hour glucose challenge test.

The early GTT results weren’t shared with patients or their health care providers. For outpatient visits, participants were offered financial incentives and received multiple reminder phone calls and the offer of free transportation.

For the purposes of the study, impaired glucose metabolism was defined as fasting blood glucose of 100 mg/dL or greater, a 2-hour GTT blood glucose level of 140 mg/dL or greater, or HbA_1c of 5.7% or greater.

Participants were diagnosed with diabetes if they had a fasting blood glucose of 126 mg/dL or greater, a 2-hour GTT blood glucose level of 200 mg/dL or greater, or HbA_1c of 6.5% or greater.

Dr. Werner and colleagues conducted two analyses of their results. In the first, they included only women in both arms who had complete data. In the second analysis, they looked at all women who had data for the 1-year postpartum mark, assuming that interval GTTs were negative for women who were missing these values.

The statistical analysis showed that, for women with complete data, both early and later postpartum GTTs were similar in predicting impaired glucose metabolism at 1 year postpartum (areas under the receiver operating curve [AUC], 0.63 and 0.60, respectively).

For identifying diabetes at 1 year, both early and late testing had high negative predictive value (98% and 99%, respectively), but the later testing strategy had higher sensitivity and specificity, yielding an AUC of 0.83, compared with 0.65 for early testing.

Turning to the second analysis that included all women who had 1-year postpartum HbA_1c values, negative predictive values for diabetes were similarly high (98%) for both the early and late testing strategies. For identifying impaired glucose metabolism at 1 year in this group, both the positive and negative predictive value of the early and late strategies were similar.

Patients were about 32 years old at baseline, with a mean body mass index of 31.7 kg/m². More than half of patients (52.3%) had private insurance, and 22% had GDM in a pregnancy prior to the index pregnancy. Black patients made up about 9% of the study population; 54% of participants were white, and 23% Hispanic. About one-third of patients were nulliparous, and two-thirds had education beyond high school.

During their pregnancies, about 44% of patients managed GDM by diet alone, 40% required insulin, with an additional 1% also requiring an oral agent. The remainder required oral agents alone. Patients delivered at a mean 38.3 weeks gestation, with about 40% receiving cesarean deliveries.

Some of the study’s strengths included its prospective nature, the diverse population recruited, and the fact that participants and providers were both blinded to the 2-day GTT results. Although more than half of participants completed the study – besting the previous pilots – 44% of patients still had incomplete data, noted Dr. Werner.

The American Diabetes Association sponsored the study. Dr. Werner reported no other conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Werner E et al. SMFM 2020. Abstract 72.

LOS ANGELES – Evidence continues to mount that diabetic retinopathy predicts elevated risk for stroke.

In a new study with nearly 3,000 people, those with diabetic retinopathy were 60% more likely than others with diabetes to develop an incident stroke over time. Investigators also found that addressing glucose, lipids, and blood pressure levels did not mitigate this risk in this secondary analysis of the ACCORD Eye Study.

“We are not surprised with the finding that diabetic retinopathy increases the risk of stroke — as diabetic retinopathy is common microvascular disease that is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Ka-Ho Wong, BS, MBA, said in an interview.

However, “we were surprised that none of the trial interventions mitigated this risk, in particular the intensive blood pressure reduction, because hypertension is the most important cause of microvascular disease,” he said. Mr. Wong is clinical research coordinator and lab manager of the de Havenon Lab at the University of Utah Health Hospitals and Clinics in Salt Lake City.

The study findings were released Feb. 12, 2020, in advance of formal presentation at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Common predictor of vascular disease

Diabetic retinopathy is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to 50% of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In addition, previous research suggests that macrovascular diabetes complications, including stroke, could share a common or synergistic pathway.

This small vessel damage in the eye also has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac events, including heart failure, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

To find out more, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed 2,828 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study. They compared the stroke risk between 874 people with diabetic retinopathy and another 1,954 diabetics without this complication. The average age was 62 years and 62% were men.

Diabetic neuropathy at baseline was diagnosed using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale using seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs.

A total of 117 participants experienced a stroke during a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.

The investigators found that diabetic retinopathy was more common among patients who had a stroke (41%) versus 31% of those without a stroke (P = .016). The link between diabetic retinopathy and stroke remained in an analysis adjusted for multiple factors, including baseline age, gender, race, total cholesterol, A_1c, smoking, and more. Risk remained elevated, with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.32; P = .015).

Regarding the potential for modifying this risk, the association was unaffected among participants randomly assigned to the ACCORD glucose intervention (P = .305), lipid intervention (P = .546), or blood pressure intervention (P = .422).

The study was a secondary analysis, so information on stroke type and location were unavailable.
 

The big picture

“Diabetic retinopathy is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which suggests that the microvascular pathology inherent to diabetic retinopathy has larger cardiovascular implications,” the researchers noted.

Despite these findings, the researchers suggest that patients with diabetic retinopathy receive aggressive medical management to try to reduce their stroke risk.

“It’s important for everyone with diabetes to maintain good blood glucose control, and those with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all the stroke prevention guidelines that are established by the American Stroke Association,” said Mr. Wong.

“Patients with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all stroke prevention guidelines established by the [American Heart Association],” he added.

Mr. Wong and colleagues would like to expand on these findings. Pending grant application and funding support, they propose conducting a prospective, observational trial in stroke patients with baseline diabetic retinopathy. One aim would be to identify the most common mechanisms leading to stroke in this population, “which would have important implications for prevention efforts,” he said.
 

Consistent Findings

“The results of the study showing that having diabetic retinopathy is also associated with an increase in stroke really isn’t surprising. There have been other studies, population-based studies, done in the past, that have found a similar relationship,” Larry B. Goldstein, MD, said in a video commentary on the findings.

“The results are actually quite consistent with several other studies that have evaluated the same relationship,” added Dr. Goldstein, who is chair of the department of neurology and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, University of Kentucky HealthCare, Lexington.

Mr. Wong and Dr. Goldstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funded the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Evidence continues to mount that diabetic retinopathy predicts elevated risk for stroke.

In a new study with nearly 3,000 people, those with diabetic retinopathy were 60% more likely than others with diabetes to develop an incident stroke over time. Investigators also found that addressing glucose, lipids, and blood pressure levels did not mitigate this risk in this secondary analysis of the ACCORD Eye Study.

“We are not surprised with the finding that diabetic retinopathy increases the risk of stroke — as diabetic retinopathy is common microvascular disease that is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Ka-Ho Wong, BS, MBA, said in an interview.

However, “we were surprised that none of the trial interventions mitigated this risk, in particular the intensive blood pressure reduction, because hypertension is the most important cause of microvascular disease,” he said. Mr. Wong is clinical research coordinator and lab manager of the de Havenon Lab at the University of Utah Health Hospitals and Clinics in Salt Lake City.

The study findings were released Feb. 12, 2020, in advance of formal presentation at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Common predictor of vascular disease

Diabetic retinopathy is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to 50% of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In addition, previous research suggests that macrovascular diabetes complications, including stroke, could share a common or synergistic pathway.

This small vessel damage in the eye also has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac events, including heart failure, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

To find out more, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed 2,828 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study. They compared the stroke risk between 874 people with diabetic retinopathy and another 1,954 diabetics without this complication. The average age was 62 years and 62% were men.

Diabetic neuropathy at baseline was diagnosed using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale using seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs.

A total of 117 participants experienced a stroke during a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.

The investigators found that diabetic retinopathy was more common among patients who had a stroke (41%) versus 31% of those without a stroke (P = .016). The link between diabetic retinopathy and stroke remained in an analysis adjusted for multiple factors, including baseline age, gender, race, total cholesterol, A_1c, smoking, and more. Risk remained elevated, with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.32; P = .015).

Regarding the potential for modifying this risk, the association was unaffected among participants randomly assigned to the ACCORD glucose intervention (P = .305), lipid intervention (P = .546), or blood pressure intervention (P = .422).

The study was a secondary analysis, so information on stroke type and location were unavailable.
 

The big picture

“Diabetic retinopathy is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which suggests that the microvascular pathology inherent to diabetic retinopathy has larger cardiovascular implications,” the researchers noted.

Despite these findings, the researchers suggest that patients with diabetic retinopathy receive aggressive medical management to try to reduce their stroke risk.

“It’s important for everyone with diabetes to maintain good blood glucose control, and those with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all the stroke prevention guidelines that are established by the American Stroke Association,” said Mr. Wong.

“Patients with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all stroke prevention guidelines established by the [American Heart Association],” he added.

Mr. Wong and colleagues would like to expand on these findings. Pending grant application and funding support, they propose conducting a prospective, observational trial in stroke patients with baseline diabetic retinopathy. One aim would be to identify the most common mechanisms leading to stroke in this population, “which would have important implications for prevention efforts,” he said.
 

Consistent Findings

“The results of the study showing that having diabetic retinopathy is also associated with an increase in stroke really isn’t surprising. There have been other studies, population-based studies, done in the past, that have found a similar relationship,” Larry B. Goldstein, MD, said in a video commentary on the findings.

“The results are actually quite consistent with several other studies that have evaluated the same relationship,” added Dr. Goldstein, who is chair of the department of neurology and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, University of Kentucky HealthCare, Lexington.

Mr. Wong and Dr. Goldstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funded the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Evidence continues to mount that diabetic retinopathy predicts elevated risk for stroke.

In a new study with nearly 3,000 people, those with diabetic retinopathy were 60% more likely than others with diabetes to develop an incident stroke over time. Investigators also found that addressing glucose, lipids, and blood pressure levels did not mitigate this risk in this secondary analysis of the ACCORD Eye Study.

“We are not surprised with the finding that diabetic retinopathy increases the risk of stroke — as diabetic retinopathy is common microvascular disease that is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Ka-Ho Wong, BS, MBA, said in an interview.

However, “we were surprised that none of the trial interventions mitigated this risk, in particular the intensive blood pressure reduction, because hypertension is the most important cause of microvascular disease,” he said. Mr. Wong is clinical research coordinator and lab manager of the de Havenon Lab at the University of Utah Health Hospitals and Clinics in Salt Lake City.

The study findings were released Feb. 12, 2020, in advance of formal presentation at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Common predictor of vascular disease

Diabetic retinopathy is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus, affecting up to 50% of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In addition, previous research suggests that macrovascular diabetes complications, including stroke, could share a common or synergistic pathway.

This small vessel damage in the eye also has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiac events, including heart failure, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News.

To find out more, Mr. Wong and colleagues analyzed 2,828 participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study. They compared the stroke risk between 874 people with diabetic retinopathy and another 1,954 diabetics without this complication. The average age was 62 years and 62% were men.

Diabetic neuropathy at baseline was diagnosed using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Severity Scale using seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs.

A total of 117 participants experienced a stroke during a mean follow-up of 5.4 years.

The investigators found that diabetic retinopathy was more common among patients who had a stroke (41%) versus 31% of those without a stroke (P = .016). The link between diabetic retinopathy and stroke remained in an analysis adjusted for multiple factors, including baseline age, gender, race, total cholesterol, A_1c, smoking, and more. Risk remained elevated, with a hazard ratio of 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.32; P = .015).

Regarding the potential for modifying this risk, the association was unaffected among participants randomly assigned to the ACCORD glucose intervention (P = .305), lipid intervention (P = .546), or blood pressure intervention (P = .422).

The study was a secondary analysis, so information on stroke type and location were unavailable.
 

The big picture

“Diabetic retinopathy is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which suggests that the microvascular pathology inherent to diabetic retinopathy has larger cardiovascular implications,” the researchers noted.

Despite these findings, the researchers suggest that patients with diabetic retinopathy receive aggressive medical management to try to reduce their stroke risk.

“It’s important for everyone with diabetes to maintain good blood glucose control, and those with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all the stroke prevention guidelines that are established by the American Stroke Association,” said Mr. Wong.

“Patients with established diabetic retinopathy should pay particular attention to meeting all stroke prevention guidelines established by the [American Heart Association],” he added.

Mr. Wong and colleagues would like to expand on these findings. Pending grant application and funding support, they propose conducting a prospective, observational trial in stroke patients with baseline diabetic retinopathy. One aim would be to identify the most common mechanisms leading to stroke in this population, “which would have important implications for prevention efforts,” he said.
 

Consistent Findings

“The results of the study showing that having diabetic retinopathy is also associated with an increase in stroke really isn’t surprising. There have been other studies, population-based studies, done in the past, that have found a similar relationship,” Larry B. Goldstein, MD, said in a video commentary on the findings.

“The results are actually quite consistent with several other studies that have evaluated the same relationship,” added Dr. Goldstein, who is chair of the department of neurology and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, University of Kentucky HealthCare, Lexington.

Mr. Wong and Dr. Goldstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke funded the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Kurt GMM Alberti, DPhil, FRCP, FRCPath, bariatric surgery should be used earlier in the course of diabetes to yield the most benefit. The problem is, far fewer people with diabetes are being referred for the surgery than would benefit from it.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

At the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease, Dr. Alberti said that only about 1% of eligible patients in the United States undergo bariatric surgery, compared with just 0.22% of eligible patients in the United Kingdom.

“Obesity is an increasing problem,” said Dr. Alberti, a senior research investigator in the section of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Imperial College, London. “The United States is leading the field [in obesity], and it doesn’t seem to be going away. This is in parallel with diabetes. According to the 2019 International Diabetes Federation’s Diabetes Atlas, the diabetes prevalence worldwide is now 463 million. It’s projected to reach 578 million by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. We have a major problem.”

Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise have been the cornerstone of diabetes therapy for more than 100 years, with only modest success. “A range of oral agents have been added [and they] certainly improve glycemic control, but few achieve lasting success, and few achieve remission,” Dr. Alberti said. Findings from DiRECT (Lancet. 2018;391:541-51) and the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145-54) have shown dramatic improvements in glycemia, but only in the minority of patients who achieved weight loss of 10 kg or more. “In this group, 80% achieved remission after 2 years in DiRECT,” he said. “It is uncertain whether this can be sustained long term in real life, and how many people will respond. Major community prevention programs are under way in the U.S. and [United Kingdom], but many target individuals with prediabetes. Currently, it is unknown how successful these programs will be.”

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical guidelines state that bariatric surgery is a recommended treatment option for adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of either 40.0 kg/m² or higher (or 37.5 kg/m² or higher in people of Asian ancestry) or 35.0-39.9 kg/m² (32.5-37.4 kg/m² in people of Asian ancestry) and who do not achieve durable weight loss and improvement in comorbidities with reasonable nonsurgical methods. According to Dr. Alberti, surgery should be an accepted option in people who have type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher, and priority should be given to adolescents, young adults, and those with a shorter duration of diabetes.

The main suggestive evidence in favor of bariatric surgery having an impact on diabetes comes from the Swedish Obese Subjects Study, which had a median follow-up of 10 years (J Intern Med. 2013;273[3]:219-34). In patients with diabetes at baseline, 30% were still in remission at 15 years after surgery. After 18 years, cumulative microvascular disease had fallen from 42 to 21 per 1,000 person-years, and macrovascular complications had fallen by 25%. “This was not a randomized, controlled trial, however,” Dr. Alberti said. Several of these studies have now been performed, including the STAMPEDE trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-51) and recent studies led by Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, which show major glycemic benefit (Lancet. 2015;386[9997]:P964-73) with bariatric surgery.

According to Dr. Alberti, laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap band is the easiest bariatric surgery to perform but it has fallen out of favor because of lower diabetes remission rates, compared with the other procedures. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliary pancreatic diversion are all in use. Slightly higher remission rates have been shown with biliary pancreatic diversion. “There have also been consistent improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “Long-term follow-up is still [needed], but, in general, it seems that diabetic complications are lower than in medically treated control groups, and mortality may also be lower. The real question is, what is the impact on complications? There we have a problem, because we do not have any good randomized, controlled trials covering a 10- to 20-year period, which would give us clear evidence. There is reasonable evidence from cohort studies, though.”

Added benefits of bariatric surgery include improved quality of life, decreased blood pressure, less sleep apnea, improved cardiovascular risk factors, and better musculoskeletal function. For now, though, an unmet need persists. “The problem is that far fewer people are referred for bariatric surgery than would benefit,” Dr. Alberti said. “There are several barriers to greater use of bariatric surgery in those with diabetes. These include physician attitudes, inadequate referrals, patient perceptions, lack of awareness among patients, inadequate insurance coverage, and particularly health system capacity. There is also a lack of sympathy for overweight people in some places.”

Dr. Alberti reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Kurt GMM Alberti, DPhil, FRCP, FRCPath, bariatric surgery should be used earlier in the course of diabetes to yield the most benefit. The problem is, far fewer people with diabetes are being referred for the surgery than would benefit from it.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

At the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease, Dr. Alberti said that only about 1% of eligible patients in the United States undergo bariatric surgery, compared with just 0.22% of eligible patients in the United Kingdom.

“Obesity is an increasing problem,” said Dr. Alberti, a senior research investigator in the section of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Imperial College, London. “The United States is leading the field [in obesity], and it doesn’t seem to be going away. This is in parallel with diabetes. According to the 2019 International Diabetes Federation’s Diabetes Atlas, the diabetes prevalence worldwide is now 463 million. It’s projected to reach 578 million by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. We have a major problem.”

Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise have been the cornerstone of diabetes therapy for more than 100 years, with only modest success. “A range of oral agents have been added [and they] certainly improve glycemic control, but few achieve lasting success, and few achieve remission,” Dr. Alberti said. Findings from DiRECT (Lancet. 2018;391:541-51) and the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145-54) have shown dramatic improvements in glycemia, but only in the minority of patients who achieved weight loss of 10 kg or more. “In this group, 80% achieved remission after 2 years in DiRECT,” he said. “It is uncertain whether this can be sustained long term in real life, and how many people will respond. Major community prevention programs are under way in the U.S. and [United Kingdom], but many target individuals with prediabetes. Currently, it is unknown how successful these programs will be.”

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical guidelines state that bariatric surgery is a recommended treatment option for adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of either 40.0 kg/m² or higher (or 37.5 kg/m² or higher in people of Asian ancestry) or 35.0-39.9 kg/m² (32.5-37.4 kg/m² in people of Asian ancestry) and who do not achieve durable weight loss and improvement in comorbidities with reasonable nonsurgical methods. According to Dr. Alberti, surgery should be an accepted option in people who have type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher, and priority should be given to adolescents, young adults, and those with a shorter duration of diabetes.

The main suggestive evidence in favor of bariatric surgery having an impact on diabetes comes from the Swedish Obese Subjects Study, which had a median follow-up of 10 years (J Intern Med. 2013;273[3]:219-34). In patients with diabetes at baseline, 30% were still in remission at 15 years after surgery. After 18 years, cumulative microvascular disease had fallen from 42 to 21 per 1,000 person-years, and macrovascular complications had fallen by 25%. “This was not a randomized, controlled trial, however,” Dr. Alberti said. Several of these studies have now been performed, including the STAMPEDE trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-51) and recent studies led by Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, which show major glycemic benefit (Lancet. 2015;386[9997]:P964-73) with bariatric surgery.

According to Dr. Alberti, laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap band is the easiest bariatric surgery to perform but it has fallen out of favor because of lower diabetes remission rates, compared with the other procedures. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliary pancreatic diversion are all in use. Slightly higher remission rates have been shown with biliary pancreatic diversion. “There have also been consistent improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “Long-term follow-up is still [needed], but, in general, it seems that diabetic complications are lower than in medically treated control groups, and mortality may also be lower. The real question is, what is the impact on complications? There we have a problem, because we do not have any good randomized, controlled trials covering a 10- to 20-year period, which would give us clear evidence. There is reasonable evidence from cohort studies, though.”

Added benefits of bariatric surgery include improved quality of life, decreased blood pressure, less sleep apnea, improved cardiovascular risk factors, and better musculoskeletal function. For now, though, an unmet need persists. “The problem is that far fewer people are referred for bariatric surgery than would benefit,” Dr. Alberti said. “There are several barriers to greater use of bariatric surgery in those with diabetes. These include physician attitudes, inadequate referrals, patient perceptions, lack of awareness among patients, inadequate insurance coverage, and particularly health system capacity. There is also a lack of sympathy for overweight people in some places.”

Dr. Alberti reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Kurt GMM Alberti, DPhil, FRCP, FRCPath, bariatric surgery should be used earlier in the course of diabetes to yield the most benefit. The problem is, far fewer people with diabetes are being referred for the surgery than would benefit from it.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

At the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease, Dr. Alberti said that only about 1% of eligible patients in the United States undergo bariatric surgery, compared with just 0.22% of eligible patients in the United Kingdom.

“Obesity is an increasing problem,” said Dr. Alberti, a senior research investigator in the section of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Imperial College, London. “The United States is leading the field [in obesity], and it doesn’t seem to be going away. This is in parallel with diabetes. According to the 2019 International Diabetes Federation’s Diabetes Atlas, the diabetes prevalence worldwide is now 463 million. It’s projected to reach 578 million by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. We have a major problem.”

Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise have been the cornerstone of diabetes therapy for more than 100 years, with only modest success. “A range of oral agents have been added [and they] certainly improve glycemic control, but few achieve lasting success, and few achieve remission,” Dr. Alberti said. Findings from DiRECT (Lancet. 2018;391:541-51) and the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145-54) have shown dramatic improvements in glycemia, but only in the minority of patients who achieved weight loss of 10 kg or more. “In this group, 80% achieved remission after 2 years in DiRECT,” he said. “It is uncertain whether this can be sustained long term in real life, and how many people will respond. Major community prevention programs are under way in the U.S. and [United Kingdom], but many target individuals with prediabetes. Currently, it is unknown how successful these programs will be.”

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical guidelines state that bariatric surgery is a recommended treatment option for adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of either 40.0 kg/m² or higher (or 37.5 kg/m² or higher in people of Asian ancestry) or 35.0-39.9 kg/m² (32.5-37.4 kg/m² in people of Asian ancestry) and who do not achieve durable weight loss and improvement in comorbidities with reasonable nonsurgical methods. According to Dr. Alberti, surgery should be an accepted option in people who have type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher, and priority should be given to adolescents, young adults, and those with a shorter duration of diabetes.

The main suggestive evidence in favor of bariatric surgery having an impact on diabetes comes from the Swedish Obese Subjects Study, which had a median follow-up of 10 years (J Intern Med. 2013;273[3]:219-34). In patients with diabetes at baseline, 30% were still in remission at 15 years after surgery. After 18 years, cumulative microvascular disease had fallen from 42 to 21 per 1,000 person-years, and macrovascular complications had fallen by 25%. “This was not a randomized, controlled trial, however,” Dr. Alberti said. Several of these studies have now been performed, including the STAMPEDE trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-51) and recent studies led by Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, which show major glycemic benefit (Lancet. 2015;386[9997]:P964-73) with bariatric surgery.

According to Dr. Alberti, laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap band is the easiest bariatric surgery to perform but it has fallen out of favor because of lower diabetes remission rates, compared with the other procedures. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliary pancreatic diversion are all in use. Slightly higher remission rates have been shown with biliary pancreatic diversion. “There have also been consistent improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “Long-term follow-up is still [needed], but, in general, it seems that diabetic complications are lower than in medically treated control groups, and mortality may also be lower. The real question is, what is the impact on complications? There we have a problem, because we do not have any good randomized, controlled trials covering a 10- to 20-year period, which would give us clear evidence. There is reasonable evidence from cohort studies, though.”

Added benefits of bariatric surgery include improved quality of life, decreased blood pressure, less sleep apnea, improved cardiovascular risk factors, and better musculoskeletal function. For now, though, an unmet need persists. “The problem is that far fewer people are referred for bariatric surgery than would benefit,” Dr. Alberti said. “There are several barriers to greater use of bariatric surgery in those with diabetes. These include physician attitudes, inadequate referrals, patient perceptions, lack of awareness among patients, inadequate insurance coverage, and particularly health system capacity. There is also a lack of sympathy for overweight people in some places.”

Dr. Alberti reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The incidence of gout was approximately 40% lower in diabetes patients who were prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) than it was in those who were prescribed glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists in a population-based new-user cohort study.

Hyperuricemia is a known cause of gout and common in type 2 diabetes patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of gout by preventing the reabsorption of glucose and lowering serum uric acid levels; however, the impact on gout risk remains uncertain, wrote Michael Fralick, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers compared SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes to assess protection against gout.

The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had a new prescription for an SGTL2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. The average age of the patients was 54 years; approximately half were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the researchers found a relative risk reduction of approximately 40% and an absolute risk reduction of approximately three fewer cases per 1,000 person-years in patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those who received GLP-1 agonists. The incidence rate for gout in the SGLT2 and GLP-1 groups were 4.9 per 1,000 person-years and 7.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by the investigators’ inability to measure potential confounding variables such as body mass index, alcohol use, and high purine diet; incomplete lab data on creatinine and hemoglobin A; and a low baseline risk for gout in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results persisted across sensitivity analysis and, if replicated, suggest that “SGLT2 inhibitors might be an effective class of medication for the prevention of gout for patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders,” they wrote.

The study was supported in part by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; lead author Dr. Fralick disclosed funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program at the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

SOURCE: Fralick M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.7326/M19-2610.

The incidence of gout was approximately 40% lower in diabetes patients who were prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) than it was in those who were prescribed glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists in a population-based new-user cohort study.

Hyperuricemia is a known cause of gout and common in type 2 diabetes patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of gout by preventing the reabsorption of glucose and lowering serum uric acid levels; however, the impact on gout risk remains uncertain, wrote Michael Fralick, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers compared SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes to assess protection against gout.

The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had a new prescription for an SGTL2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. The average age of the patients was 54 years; approximately half were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the researchers found a relative risk reduction of approximately 40% and an absolute risk reduction of approximately three fewer cases per 1,000 person-years in patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those who received GLP-1 agonists. The incidence rate for gout in the SGLT2 and GLP-1 groups were 4.9 per 1,000 person-years and 7.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by the investigators’ inability to measure potential confounding variables such as body mass index, alcohol use, and high purine diet; incomplete lab data on creatinine and hemoglobin A; and a low baseline risk for gout in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results persisted across sensitivity analysis and, if replicated, suggest that “SGLT2 inhibitors might be an effective class of medication for the prevention of gout for patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders,” they wrote.

The study was supported in part by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; lead author Dr. Fralick disclosed funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program at the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

SOURCE: Fralick M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.7326/M19-2610.

The incidence of gout was approximately 40% lower in diabetes patients who were prescribed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) than it was in those who were prescribed glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists in a population-based new-user cohort study.

Hyperuricemia is a known cause of gout and common in type 2 diabetes patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of gout by preventing the reabsorption of glucose and lowering serum uric acid levels; however, the impact on gout risk remains uncertain, wrote Michael Fralick, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers compared SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes to assess protection against gout.

The study population included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had a new prescription for an SGTL2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. The average age of the patients was 54 years; approximately half were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the researchers found a relative risk reduction of approximately 40% and an absolute risk reduction of approximately three fewer cases per 1,000 person-years in patients who received SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those who received GLP-1 agonists. The incidence rate for gout in the SGLT2 and GLP-1 groups were 4.9 per 1,000 person-years and 7.8 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

The study findings were limited by the investigators’ inability to measure potential confounding variables such as body mass index, alcohol use, and high purine diet; incomplete lab data on creatinine and hemoglobin A; and a low baseline risk for gout in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results persisted across sensitivity analysis and, if replicated, suggest that “SGLT2 inhibitors might be an effective class of medication for the prevention of gout for patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders,” they wrote.

The study was supported in part by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; lead author Dr. Fralick disclosed funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program at the University of Toronto and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

SOURCE: Fralick M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 14. doi: 10.7326/M19-2610.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Metformin’s role in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus has been firmly established by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial – most recently, by 15-year follow-up data reported this year – and the drug should be front and center for clinicians who hope to stave off the “remarkable” incidence of type 2 diabetes after GDM, Robert E. Ratner, MD, maintained at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

The DPP included “the single largest population of women with a history of GDM that’s been looked at in a randomized controlled trial,” and considering its multiethnic population, the trial offers a reliable representative sample to ponder today when evaluating long-term use of metformin after GDM, said Dr. Ratner, a principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study and a former chief scientific & medical officer for the American Diabetes Association.

The drug stacked up equally to lifestyle interventions among DPP participants who had a history of GDM, but it’s important to appreciate that these interventions were intensive and that metformin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and “has a long safety record,” he said.
 

Results of follow-up out to 15 years

Of the more than 3,000 men and women enrolled in the landmark DPP, conducted during 1996-2001, 350 were women with a documented history of GDM and over 1,400 were women who had deliveries but no history of GDM. All participants had impaired glucose tolerance – defined for the trial as having both a fasting plasma glucose value of 95-125 mg/dL and a 2-hour value of 140-199 mg/dL after a 75-g glucose load – and were randomized to placebo, metformin, or intensive lifestyle intervention.

Metformin therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by approximately 50% in women with a history of GDM, compared with the placebo group – as did lifestyle – over 3 years. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was five. Women without a history of GDM, on the other hand, saw only a 14% reduction with metformin when compared with placebo (and a 49% reduction with lifestyle).

“In women with a history of GDM ... one pill twice a day for $4 a month worked as well as intensive lifestyle [change],” Dr. Ratner said, referring to the initial GDM-specific analysis of DPP data published in 2008 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93[12]:4774-9).

In a 10-year postrandomization follow-up, published in 2015, both metformin and lifestyle continued to be equally effective for the GDM group, reducing the progression to diabetes by 40% and 35%, respectively (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:1646-53). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was seven. (Among women without a history of GDM, metformin did not reduce progression to diabetes.)

A recent DPP Outcomes Study analysis of metformin’s impact on diabetes prevention at 15 years, moreover, showed a 41% risk reduction among women with a history of GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42[4]:601-8).
 

Advice on prescribing metformin prophylactically

Asked after his presentation whether women with a history of GDM and either an elevated fasting plasma glucose value or an elevated 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) value – or neither of the two – would benefit from taking metformin, Dr. Ratner said that “we’re stuck with inclusion criteria of the DPP, in which they had to meet both criteria ... What I’d say, though, is that not everyone with a history of GDM needs to be on metformin prophylactically. But [for women who have] prediabetes as defined by the ADA, the cost-benefit analysis points toward metformin.”

And with respect to early initiation and long-term use of the drug, “I would have absolutely no qualms about medicating a 25-year-old who had developed GDM and who in the postpartum period has prediabetes,” Dr. Ratner said during an open discussion. “She’s actually at the highest risk for developing type 2 very early.”

Kim Boggess, MD, who also presented on long-term use of metformin after GDM, said in the discussion period that she is often quick to recommend metformin therapy to her patients who have an elevated fasting plasma glucose value in the postpartum period, even when a 75-g oral GTT has not yet been performed. (The ADA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend completion of an oral GTT at 4-12 weeks postpartum after GDM.)

“I start them [on metformin] especially if they’ve had a cesarean section. Even 2, 3, 4 weeks of profound hyperglycemia could have potentially deleterious effects,” said Dr. Boggess, professor and maternal-fetal medicine program director at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “If someone comes in [shortly after] and looks like they have pristine control, then it might be worth stopping the metformin for 3-5 days (and retesting).”

Dr. Ratner said that, in this clinical scenario, he would first ensure that the fasting glucose value “is a true fasting glucose” and “if it’s substantially elevated – I’m talking 100, 105, 110 mg/dL – I’d start metformin, and I’m not even sure I’d do the GTT.” But, he advised, “if you’re going to do the GTT, I’d stop the metformin the day before.”

In her presentation, Dr. Boggess pointed out that metformin wasn’t shown to be superior to lifestyle interventions in the DPP for preventing progression to type 2 DM, and that some women are more motivated for intensive lifestyle change than others. The ADA recommends, in fact, that either metformin or lifestyle interventions be prescribed to women with a history of GDM who are found to have prediabetes.

What is needed, Dr. Boggess said, are more data on the effects of metformin on cardiovascular disease risk, as well as larger studies of metformin in the postpartum period “to help us determine the best dose.” Some research on metformin use in the postpartum period has reported gastrointestinal side effects and dissatisfaction, she noted.

Dr. Ratner said that metformin’s main drawback is the need for occasional testing of B₁₂ levels. Regarding weight loss and what was observed in the DPP, he said, women with a history of GDM who were randomized to intensive lifestyle interventions did not lose as much weight as women without a history of GDM.

Women who entered the DPP with a GDM history, he noted in his presentation, were essentially a “cohort of survivors.” They had an average age of 43 (compared with 52 years in the parous women without GDM) and a mean interval from the index GDM pregnancy of 11 years, which means that women with the highest risk of diabetes conversion were excluded, Dr. Ratner said.

Age was the only significantly different baseline characteristic between parous women with and without GDM, he noted. Women with a history of GDM who were randomized to placebo had a 71% higher incidence of diabetes than women without such a history – a striking natural history, Dr. Ratner said.

He and Dr. Boggess each reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest.

WASHINGTON – Metformin’s role in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus has been firmly established by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial – most recently, by 15-year follow-up data reported this year – and the drug should be front and center for clinicians who hope to stave off the “remarkable” incidence of type 2 diabetes after GDM, Robert E. Ratner, MD, maintained at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

The DPP included “the single largest population of women with a history of GDM that’s been looked at in a randomized controlled trial,” and considering its multiethnic population, the trial offers a reliable representative sample to ponder today when evaluating long-term use of metformin after GDM, said Dr. Ratner, a principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study and a former chief scientific & medical officer for the American Diabetes Association.

The drug stacked up equally to lifestyle interventions among DPP participants who had a history of GDM, but it’s important to appreciate that these interventions were intensive and that metformin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and “has a long safety record,” he said.
 

Results of follow-up out to 15 years

Of the more than 3,000 men and women enrolled in the landmark DPP, conducted during 1996-2001, 350 were women with a documented history of GDM and over 1,400 were women who had deliveries but no history of GDM. All participants had impaired glucose tolerance – defined for the trial as having both a fasting plasma glucose value of 95-125 mg/dL and a 2-hour value of 140-199 mg/dL after a 75-g glucose load – and were randomized to placebo, metformin, or intensive lifestyle intervention.

Metformin therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by approximately 50% in women with a history of GDM, compared with the placebo group – as did lifestyle – over 3 years. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was five. Women without a history of GDM, on the other hand, saw only a 14% reduction with metformin when compared with placebo (and a 49% reduction with lifestyle).

“In women with a history of GDM ... one pill twice a day for $4 a month worked as well as intensive lifestyle [change],” Dr. Ratner said, referring to the initial GDM-specific analysis of DPP data published in 2008 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93[12]:4774-9).

In a 10-year postrandomization follow-up, published in 2015, both metformin and lifestyle continued to be equally effective for the GDM group, reducing the progression to diabetes by 40% and 35%, respectively (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:1646-53). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was seven. (Among women without a history of GDM, metformin did not reduce progression to diabetes.)

A recent DPP Outcomes Study analysis of metformin’s impact on diabetes prevention at 15 years, moreover, showed a 41% risk reduction among women with a history of GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42[4]:601-8).
 

Advice on prescribing metformin prophylactically

Asked after his presentation whether women with a history of GDM and either an elevated fasting plasma glucose value or an elevated 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) value – or neither of the two – would benefit from taking metformin, Dr. Ratner said that “we’re stuck with inclusion criteria of the DPP, in which they had to meet both criteria ... What I’d say, though, is that not everyone with a history of GDM needs to be on metformin prophylactically. But [for women who have] prediabetes as defined by the ADA, the cost-benefit analysis points toward metformin.”

And with respect to early initiation and long-term use of the drug, “I would have absolutely no qualms about medicating a 25-year-old who had developed GDM and who in the postpartum period has prediabetes,” Dr. Ratner said during an open discussion. “She’s actually at the highest risk for developing type 2 very early.”

Kim Boggess, MD, who also presented on long-term use of metformin after GDM, said in the discussion period that she is often quick to recommend metformin therapy to her patients who have an elevated fasting plasma glucose value in the postpartum period, even when a 75-g oral GTT has not yet been performed. (The ADA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend completion of an oral GTT at 4-12 weeks postpartum after GDM.)

“I start them [on metformin] especially if they’ve had a cesarean section. Even 2, 3, 4 weeks of profound hyperglycemia could have potentially deleterious effects,” said Dr. Boggess, professor and maternal-fetal medicine program director at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “If someone comes in [shortly after] and looks like they have pristine control, then it might be worth stopping the metformin for 3-5 days (and retesting).”

Dr. Ratner said that, in this clinical scenario, he would first ensure that the fasting glucose value “is a true fasting glucose” and “if it’s substantially elevated – I’m talking 100, 105, 110 mg/dL – I’d start metformin, and I’m not even sure I’d do the GTT.” But, he advised, “if you’re going to do the GTT, I’d stop the metformin the day before.”

In her presentation, Dr. Boggess pointed out that metformin wasn’t shown to be superior to lifestyle interventions in the DPP for preventing progression to type 2 DM, and that some women are more motivated for intensive lifestyle change than others. The ADA recommends, in fact, that either metformin or lifestyle interventions be prescribed to women with a history of GDM who are found to have prediabetes.

What is needed, Dr. Boggess said, are more data on the effects of metformin on cardiovascular disease risk, as well as larger studies of metformin in the postpartum period “to help us determine the best dose.” Some research on metformin use in the postpartum period has reported gastrointestinal side effects and dissatisfaction, she noted.

Dr. Ratner said that metformin’s main drawback is the need for occasional testing of B₁₂ levels. Regarding weight loss and what was observed in the DPP, he said, women with a history of GDM who were randomized to intensive lifestyle interventions did not lose as much weight as women without a history of GDM.

Women who entered the DPP with a GDM history, he noted in his presentation, were essentially a “cohort of survivors.” They had an average age of 43 (compared with 52 years in the parous women without GDM) and a mean interval from the index GDM pregnancy of 11 years, which means that women with the highest risk of diabetes conversion were excluded, Dr. Ratner said.

Age was the only significantly different baseline characteristic between parous women with and without GDM, he noted. Women with a history of GDM who were randomized to placebo had a 71% higher incidence of diabetes than women without such a history – a striking natural history, Dr. Ratner said.

He and Dr. Boggess each reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest.

WASHINGTON – Metformin’s role in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus has been firmly established by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial – most recently, by 15-year follow-up data reported this year – and the drug should be front and center for clinicians who hope to stave off the “remarkable” incidence of type 2 diabetes after GDM, Robert E. Ratner, MD, maintained at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

The DPP included “the single largest population of women with a history of GDM that’s been looked at in a randomized controlled trial,” and considering its multiethnic population, the trial offers a reliable representative sample to ponder today when evaluating long-term use of metformin after GDM, said Dr. Ratner, a principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study and a former chief scientific & medical officer for the American Diabetes Association.

The drug stacked up equally to lifestyle interventions among DPP participants who had a history of GDM, but it’s important to appreciate that these interventions were intensive and that metformin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and “has a long safety record,” he said.
 

Results of follow-up out to 15 years

Of the more than 3,000 men and women enrolled in the landmark DPP, conducted during 1996-2001, 350 were women with a documented history of GDM and over 1,400 were women who had deliveries but no history of GDM. All participants had impaired glucose tolerance – defined for the trial as having both a fasting plasma glucose value of 95-125 mg/dL and a 2-hour value of 140-199 mg/dL after a 75-g glucose load – and were randomized to placebo, metformin, or intensive lifestyle intervention.

Metformin therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by approximately 50% in women with a history of GDM, compared with the placebo group – as did lifestyle – over 3 years. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was five. Women without a history of GDM, on the other hand, saw only a 14% reduction with metformin when compared with placebo (and a 49% reduction with lifestyle).

“In women with a history of GDM ... one pill twice a day for $4 a month worked as well as intensive lifestyle [change],” Dr. Ratner said, referring to the initial GDM-specific analysis of DPP data published in 2008 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93[12]:4774-9).

In a 10-year postrandomization follow-up, published in 2015, both metformin and lifestyle continued to be equally effective for the GDM group, reducing the progression to diabetes by 40% and 35%, respectively (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:1646-53). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was seven. (Among women without a history of GDM, metformin did not reduce progression to diabetes.)

A recent DPP Outcomes Study analysis of metformin’s impact on diabetes prevention at 15 years, moreover, showed a 41% risk reduction among women with a history of GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42[4]:601-8).
 

Advice on prescribing metformin prophylactically

Asked after his presentation whether women with a history of GDM and either an elevated fasting plasma glucose value or an elevated 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) value – or neither of the two – would benefit from taking metformin, Dr. Ratner said that “we’re stuck with inclusion criteria of the DPP, in which they had to meet both criteria ... What I’d say, though, is that not everyone with a history of GDM needs to be on metformin prophylactically. But [for women who have] prediabetes as defined by the ADA, the cost-benefit analysis points toward metformin.”

And with respect to early initiation and long-term use of the drug, “I would have absolutely no qualms about medicating a 25-year-old who had developed GDM and who in the postpartum period has prediabetes,” Dr. Ratner said during an open discussion. “She’s actually at the highest risk for developing type 2 very early.”

Kim Boggess, MD, who also presented on long-term use of metformin after GDM, said in the discussion period that she is often quick to recommend metformin therapy to her patients who have an elevated fasting plasma glucose value in the postpartum period, even when a 75-g oral GTT has not yet been performed. (The ADA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend completion of an oral GTT at 4-12 weeks postpartum after GDM.)

“I start them [on metformin] especially if they’ve had a cesarean section. Even 2, 3, 4 weeks of profound hyperglycemia could have potentially deleterious effects,” said Dr. Boggess, professor and maternal-fetal medicine program director at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “If someone comes in [shortly after] and looks like they have pristine control, then it might be worth stopping the metformin for 3-5 days (and retesting).”

Dr. Ratner said that, in this clinical scenario, he would first ensure that the fasting glucose value “is a true fasting glucose” and “if it’s substantially elevated – I’m talking 100, 105, 110 mg/dL – I’d start metformin, and I’m not even sure I’d do the GTT.” But, he advised, “if you’re going to do the GTT, I’d stop the metformin the day before.”

In her presentation, Dr. Boggess pointed out that metformin wasn’t shown to be superior to lifestyle interventions in the DPP for preventing progression to type 2 DM, and that some women are more motivated for intensive lifestyle change than others. The ADA recommends, in fact, that either metformin or lifestyle interventions be prescribed to women with a history of GDM who are found to have prediabetes.

What is needed, Dr. Boggess said, are more data on the effects of metformin on cardiovascular disease risk, as well as larger studies of metformin in the postpartum period “to help us determine the best dose.” Some research on metformin use in the postpartum period has reported gastrointestinal side effects and dissatisfaction, she noted.

Dr. Ratner said that metformin’s main drawback is the need for occasional testing of B₁₂ levels. Regarding weight loss and what was observed in the DPP, he said, women with a history of GDM who were randomized to intensive lifestyle interventions did not lose as much weight as women without a history of GDM.

Women who entered the DPP with a GDM history, he noted in his presentation, were essentially a “cohort of survivors.” They had an average age of 43 (compared with 52 years in the parous women without GDM) and a mean interval from the index GDM pregnancy of 11 years, which means that women with the highest risk of diabetes conversion were excluded, Dr. Ratner said.

Age was the only significantly different baseline characteristic between parous women with and without GDM, he noted. Women with a history of GDM who were randomized to placebo had a 71% higher incidence of diabetes than women without such a history – a striking natural history, Dr. Ratner said.

He and Dr. Boggess each reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest.

People who eat red meat or processed meat should continue their current meat consumption, according to recent guidelines from an international panel that were recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Fuse/Thinkstock

This recommendation was based on the panel having found “low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in unprocessed red meat may have little or no effect on the risk for major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.” Additionally, meta-analysis results from 23 cohort studies provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that decreasing unprocessed red meat intake may result in a very small reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular outcomes and type 2 diabetes, with no statistically differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, the guidelines say.

“Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible,” Bradley C. Johnston, PhD, of the department of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in their paper summarizing the panel’s guidelines.

The evidence Dr. Johnston and colleagues examined were from four systematic reviews analyzing the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption in randomized trials and meta-analyses of cohort studies as well as one systematic review that identified how people viewed their consumption of meat and values surrounding meat consumption.

In one review of 12 randomized trials examining diets of high and low red meat consumption, a diet consisting of low red meat had little effect on cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.06), cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05), all-cause mortality (0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) and total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01), including on colorectal cancer or breast cancer (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0622). A different review of observational cohort studies with more than 1,000 participants found “very-small or possibly small decreases” in all-cause mortality, incidence, and all-cause mortality of cancer, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease and MI, and type 2 diabetes for patients who had a diet low in red meat or processed meat (Vernooij R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1583); a second review by Zeraatkar and colleagues of 55 observational cohort studies with more than 4 million participants found three servings of unprocessed red meat and processed meat per week was associated with a “very small reduction” in risk for MI, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326). Another systematic review of 56 observational cohort studies found three servings of unprocessed red meat per week was associated with a slight reduction in overall cancer mortality (Han MA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0699).

The authors also performed a systematic review of participant preferences and values regarding meat consumption. The evidence from 54 qualitative studies showed omnivores preferred eating meat, considered it part of a healthy diet, “lack[ed] the skills needed” to prepare meals without meat, and were mostly unwilling to change their meat consumption (Valli C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326).

“There was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of three servings of red or processed meat per week,” Dr. Johnston and colleagues wrote in their guidelines. If the very-small exposure effect is true, given peoples’ attachment to their meat-based diet, the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples’ values and preferences related to meat.”

The authors noted they did not examine factors such as cost, acceptability, feasibility, equity, environmental impact, and views on animal welfare when creating the guidelines. In addition, the low level of evidence from the randomized trials and observational studies means that the potential benefits of reducing red meat or processed meat intake may not outweigh the cultural and personal preferences or quality of life issues that could arise from changing one’s diet.

“This assessment may be excessively pessimistic; indeed, we hope that is the case,” they said. “What is certain is that generating higher-quality evidence regarding the magnitude of any causal effect of meat consumption on health outcomes will test the ingenuity and imagination of health science investigators.”

Dr. El Dib reported receiving funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. Dr. de Souza reports relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and the World Health Organization in the forms of personal fees, grants, and speakers bureau and board of directorship appointments. Dr. Patel reports receiving grants and person fees from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, the National Science Foundation, XY.health, doc.ai, Janssen, and the CDC.

SOURCE: Johnston B et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1621.

People who eat red meat or processed meat should continue their current meat consumption, according to recent guidelines from an international panel that were recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Fuse/Thinkstock

This recommendation was based on the panel having found “low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in unprocessed red meat may have little or no effect on the risk for major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.” Additionally, meta-analysis results from 23 cohort studies provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that decreasing unprocessed red meat intake may result in a very small reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular outcomes and type 2 diabetes, with no statistically differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, the guidelines say.

“Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible,” Bradley C. Johnston, PhD, of the department of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in their paper summarizing the panel’s guidelines.

The evidence Dr. Johnston and colleagues examined were from four systematic reviews analyzing the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption in randomized trials and meta-analyses of cohort studies as well as one systematic review that identified how people viewed their consumption of meat and values surrounding meat consumption.

In one review of 12 randomized trials examining diets of high and low red meat consumption, a diet consisting of low red meat had little effect on cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.06), cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05), all-cause mortality (0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) and total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01), including on colorectal cancer or breast cancer (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0622). A different review of observational cohort studies with more than 1,000 participants found “very-small or possibly small decreases” in all-cause mortality, incidence, and all-cause mortality of cancer, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease and MI, and type 2 diabetes for patients who had a diet low in red meat or processed meat (Vernooij R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1583); a second review by Zeraatkar and colleagues of 55 observational cohort studies with more than 4 million participants found three servings of unprocessed red meat and processed meat per week was associated with a “very small reduction” in risk for MI, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326). Another systematic review of 56 observational cohort studies found three servings of unprocessed red meat per week was associated with a slight reduction in overall cancer mortality (Han MA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0699).

The authors also performed a systematic review of participant preferences and values regarding meat consumption. The evidence from 54 qualitative studies showed omnivores preferred eating meat, considered it part of a healthy diet, “lack[ed] the skills needed” to prepare meals without meat, and were mostly unwilling to change their meat consumption (Valli C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326).

“There was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of three servings of red or processed meat per week,” Dr. Johnston and colleagues wrote in their guidelines. If the very-small exposure effect is true, given peoples’ attachment to their meat-based diet, the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples’ values and preferences related to meat.”

The authors noted they did not examine factors such as cost, acceptability, feasibility, equity, environmental impact, and views on animal welfare when creating the guidelines. In addition, the low level of evidence from the randomized trials and observational studies means that the potential benefits of reducing red meat or processed meat intake may not outweigh the cultural and personal preferences or quality of life issues that could arise from changing one’s diet.

“This assessment may be excessively pessimistic; indeed, we hope that is the case,” they said. “What is certain is that generating higher-quality evidence regarding the magnitude of any causal effect of meat consumption on health outcomes will test the ingenuity and imagination of health science investigators.”

Dr. El Dib reported receiving funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. Dr. de Souza reports relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and the World Health Organization in the forms of personal fees, grants, and speakers bureau and board of directorship appointments. Dr. Patel reports receiving grants and person fees from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, the National Science Foundation, XY.health, doc.ai, Janssen, and the CDC.

SOURCE: Johnston B et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1621.

People who eat red meat or processed meat should continue their current meat consumption, according to recent guidelines from an international panel that were recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Fuse/Thinkstock

This recommendation was based on the panel having found “low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in unprocessed red meat may have little or no effect on the risk for major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.” Additionally, meta-analysis results from 23 cohort studies provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that decreasing unprocessed red meat intake may result in a very small reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular outcomes and type 2 diabetes, with no statistically differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, the guidelines say.

“Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible,” Bradley C. Johnston, PhD, of the department of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in their paper summarizing the panel’s guidelines.

The evidence Dr. Johnston and colleagues examined were from four systematic reviews analyzing the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption in randomized trials and meta-analyses of cohort studies as well as one systematic review that identified how people viewed their consumption of meat and values surrounding meat consumption.

In one review of 12 randomized trials examining diets of high and low red meat consumption, a diet consisting of low red meat had little effect on cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.06), cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05), all-cause mortality (0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) and total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01), including on colorectal cancer or breast cancer (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0622). A different review of observational cohort studies with more than 1,000 participants found “very-small or possibly small decreases” in all-cause mortality, incidence, and all-cause mortality of cancer, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease and MI, and type 2 diabetes for patients who had a diet low in red meat or processed meat (Vernooij R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1583); a second review by Zeraatkar and colleagues of 55 observational cohort studies with more than 4 million participants found three servings of unprocessed red meat and processed meat per week was associated with a “very small reduction” in risk for MI, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326). Another systematic review of 56 observational cohort studies found three servings of unprocessed red meat per week was associated with a slight reduction in overall cancer mortality (Han MA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0699).

The authors also performed a systematic review of participant preferences and values regarding meat consumption. The evidence from 54 qualitative studies showed omnivores preferred eating meat, considered it part of a healthy diet, “lack[ed] the skills needed” to prepare meals without meat, and were mostly unwilling to change their meat consumption (Valli C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326).

“There was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of three servings of red or processed meat per week,” Dr. Johnston and colleagues wrote in their guidelines. If the very-small exposure effect is true, given peoples’ attachment to their meat-based diet, the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples’ values and preferences related to meat.”

The authors noted they did not examine factors such as cost, acceptability, feasibility, equity, environmental impact, and views on animal welfare when creating the guidelines. In addition, the low level of evidence from the randomized trials and observational studies means that the potential benefits of reducing red meat or processed meat intake may not outweigh the cultural and personal preferences or quality of life issues that could arise from changing one’s diet.

“This assessment may be excessively pessimistic; indeed, we hope that is the case,” they said. “What is certain is that generating higher-quality evidence regarding the magnitude of any causal effect of meat consumption on health outcomes will test the ingenuity and imagination of health science investigators.”

Dr. El Dib reported receiving funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. Dr. de Souza reports relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and the World Health Organization in the forms of personal fees, grants, and speakers bureau and board of directorship appointments. Dr. Patel reports receiving grants and person fees from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, the National Science Foundation, XY.health, doc.ai, Janssen, and the CDC.

SOURCE: Johnston B et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1621.

Weight-loss surgery in people with type 2 diabetes and obesity is associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with nonsurgical management, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The retrospective cohort study, simultaneously published in JAMA, looked at outcomes in 13,722 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity, 2,287 of whom underwent metabolic surgery and the rest of the matched cohort receiving usual care.

At 8 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of first occurrence of all-cause mortality, coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation – was 30.8% in the weight loss–surgery group and 47.7% in the nonsurgical-control group, representing a 39% lower risk with weight loss surgery (P less than .001).

The analysis failed to find any interaction with sex, age, body mass index (BMI), HbA_1c level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or use of insulin, sulfonylureas, or lipid-lowering medications.

Metabolic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and mortality than usual care (17% vs. 27.6%).

In particular, researchers saw a significant 41% reduction in the risk of death at eight years in the surgical group compared to usual care (10% vs. 17.8%), a 62% reduction in the risk of heart failure, a 31% reduction in the risk of coronary artery disease, and a 60% reduction in nephropathy risk. Metabolic surgery was also associated with a 33% reduction in cerebrovascular disease risk, and a 22% lower risk of atrial fibrillation.

In the group that underwent metabolic surgery, mean bodyweight at 8 years was reduced by 29.1 kg, compared with 8.7 kg in the control group. At baseline, 75% of the metabolic surgery group had a BMI of 40 kg/m² or above, 20% had a BMI between 35-39.9, and 5% had a BMI between 30-34.9.

The surgery was also associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA_1c, and in the use of noninsulin diabetes medications, insulin, antihypertensive medications, lipid-lowering therapies, and aspirin.

The most common surgical weight loss procedure was Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (63%), followed by sleeve gastrectomy (32%), and adjustable gastric banding (5%). Five patients underwent duodenal switch.

In the 90 days after surgery, 3% of patients experienced bleeding that required transfusion, 2.5% experienced pulmonary adverse events, 1% experienced venous thromboembolism, 0.7% experienced cardiac events, and 0.2% experienced renal failure that required dialysis. There were also 15 deaths (0.7%) in the surgical group, and 4.8% of patients required abdominal surgical intervention.

“We speculate that the lower rate of [major adverse cardiovascular events] after metabolic surgery observed in this study may be related to substantial and sustained weight loss with subsequent improvement in metabolic, structural, hemodynamic, and neurohormonal abnormalities,” wrote Ali Aminian, MD, of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthors.

“Although large and sustained surgically induced weight loss has profound physiologic effects, a growing body of evidence indicates that some of the beneficial metabolic and neurohormonal changes that occur after metabolic surgical procedures are related to anatomical changes in the gastrointestinal tract that are partially independent of weight loss,” they wrote.

The authors, however, were also keen to point out that their study was observational, and should therefore be considered “hypothesis generating.” While the two study groups were matched on 37 baseline covariates, those in the surgical group did have a higher body weight, higher BMI, higher rates of dyslipidemia, and higher rates of hypertension.

“The findings from this observational study must be confirmed in randomized clinical trials,” they noted.

The study was partly funded by Medtronic, and one author was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Five authors declared funding and support from private industry, including from Medtronic, and one author declared institutional grants.

SOURCE: Aminian A et al. JAMA 2019, Sept 2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.14231.

Weight-loss surgery in people with type 2 diabetes and obesity is associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with nonsurgical management, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The retrospective cohort study, simultaneously published in JAMA, looked at outcomes in 13,722 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity, 2,287 of whom underwent metabolic surgery and the rest of the matched cohort receiving usual care.

At 8 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of first occurrence of all-cause mortality, coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation – was 30.8% in the weight loss–surgery group and 47.7% in the nonsurgical-control group, representing a 39% lower risk with weight loss surgery (P less than .001).

The analysis failed to find any interaction with sex, age, body mass index (BMI), HbA_1c level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or use of insulin, sulfonylureas, or lipid-lowering medications.

Metabolic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and mortality than usual care (17% vs. 27.6%).

In particular, researchers saw a significant 41% reduction in the risk of death at eight years in the surgical group compared to usual care (10% vs. 17.8%), a 62% reduction in the risk of heart failure, a 31% reduction in the risk of coronary artery disease, and a 60% reduction in nephropathy risk. Metabolic surgery was also associated with a 33% reduction in cerebrovascular disease risk, and a 22% lower risk of atrial fibrillation.

In the group that underwent metabolic surgery, mean bodyweight at 8 years was reduced by 29.1 kg, compared with 8.7 kg in the control group. At baseline, 75% of the metabolic surgery group had a BMI of 40 kg/m² or above, 20% had a BMI between 35-39.9, and 5% had a BMI between 30-34.9.

The surgery was also associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA_1c, and in the use of noninsulin diabetes medications, insulin, antihypertensive medications, lipid-lowering therapies, and aspirin.

The most common surgical weight loss procedure was Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (63%), followed by sleeve gastrectomy (32%), and adjustable gastric banding (5%). Five patients underwent duodenal switch.

In the 90 days after surgery, 3% of patients experienced bleeding that required transfusion, 2.5% experienced pulmonary adverse events, 1% experienced venous thromboembolism, 0.7% experienced cardiac events, and 0.2% experienced renal failure that required dialysis. There were also 15 deaths (0.7%) in the surgical group, and 4.8% of patients required abdominal surgical intervention.

“We speculate that the lower rate of [major adverse cardiovascular events] after metabolic surgery observed in this study may be related to substantial and sustained weight loss with subsequent improvement in metabolic, structural, hemodynamic, and neurohormonal abnormalities,” wrote Ali Aminian, MD, of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthors.

“Although large and sustained surgically induced weight loss has profound physiologic effects, a growing body of evidence indicates that some of the beneficial metabolic and neurohormonal changes that occur after metabolic surgical procedures are related to anatomical changes in the gastrointestinal tract that are partially independent of weight loss,” they wrote.

The authors, however, were also keen to point out that their study was observational, and should therefore be considered “hypothesis generating.” While the two study groups were matched on 37 baseline covariates, those in the surgical group did have a higher body weight, higher BMI, higher rates of dyslipidemia, and higher rates of hypertension.

“The findings from this observational study must be confirmed in randomized clinical trials,” they noted.

The study was partly funded by Medtronic, and one author was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Five authors declared funding and support from private industry, including from Medtronic, and one author declared institutional grants.

SOURCE: Aminian A et al. JAMA 2019, Sept 2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.14231.

Weight-loss surgery in people with type 2 diabetes and obesity is associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with nonsurgical management, according to data presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The retrospective cohort study, simultaneously published in JAMA, looked at outcomes in 13,722 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity, 2,287 of whom underwent metabolic surgery and the rest of the matched cohort receiving usual care.

At 8 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of first occurrence of all-cause mortality, coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation – was 30.8% in the weight loss–surgery group and 47.7% in the nonsurgical-control group, representing a 39% lower risk with weight loss surgery (P less than .001).

The analysis failed to find any interaction with sex, age, body mass index (BMI), HbA_1c level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or use of insulin, sulfonylureas, or lipid-lowering medications.

Metabolic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and mortality than usual care (17% vs. 27.6%).

In particular, researchers saw a significant 41% reduction in the risk of death at eight years in the surgical group compared to usual care (10% vs. 17.8%), a 62% reduction in the risk of heart failure, a 31% reduction in the risk of coronary artery disease, and a 60% reduction in nephropathy risk. Metabolic surgery was also associated with a 33% reduction in cerebrovascular disease risk, and a 22% lower risk of atrial fibrillation.

In the group that underwent metabolic surgery, mean bodyweight at 8 years was reduced by 29.1 kg, compared with 8.7 kg in the control group. At baseline, 75% of the metabolic surgery group had a BMI of 40 kg/m² or above, 20% had a BMI between 35-39.9, and 5% had a BMI between 30-34.9.

The surgery was also associated with significantly greater reductions in HbA_1c, and in the use of noninsulin diabetes medications, insulin, antihypertensive medications, lipid-lowering therapies, and aspirin.

The most common surgical weight loss procedure was Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (63%), followed by sleeve gastrectomy (32%), and adjustable gastric banding (5%). Five patients underwent duodenal switch.

In the 90 days after surgery, 3% of patients experienced bleeding that required transfusion, 2.5% experienced pulmonary adverse events, 1% experienced venous thromboembolism, 0.7% experienced cardiac events, and 0.2% experienced renal failure that required dialysis. There were also 15 deaths (0.7%) in the surgical group, and 4.8% of patients required abdominal surgical intervention.

“We speculate that the lower rate of [major adverse cardiovascular events] after metabolic surgery observed in this study may be related to substantial and sustained weight loss with subsequent improvement in metabolic, structural, hemodynamic, and neurohormonal abnormalities,” wrote Ali Aminian, MD, of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthors.

“Although large and sustained surgically induced weight loss has profound physiologic effects, a growing body of evidence indicates that some of the beneficial metabolic and neurohormonal changes that occur after metabolic surgical procedures are related to anatomical changes in the gastrointestinal tract that are partially independent of weight loss,” they wrote.

The authors, however, were also keen to point out that their study was observational, and should therefore be considered “hypothesis generating.” While the two study groups were matched on 37 baseline covariates, those in the surgical group did have a higher body weight, higher BMI, higher rates of dyslipidemia, and higher rates of hypertension.

“The findings from this observational study must be confirmed in randomized clinical trials,” they noted.

The study was partly funded by Medtronic, and one author was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Five authors declared funding and support from private industry, including from Medtronic, and one author declared institutional grants.

SOURCE: Aminian A et al. JAMA 2019, Sept 2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.14231.

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)