Young adults who use cannabis – either sporadically, daily, or those who have cannabis use disorder – have a significantly increased risk for suicidal thoughts and actions, according to U.S. national drug survey data.

The risks appear greater for women than men and remained regardless of whether the individual was depressed.

“We cannot establish that cannabis use caused increased suicidality,” Nora Volkow, MD, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), told this news organization.

“However, it is likely that these two factors influence one another bidirectionally, meaning people with suicidal thinking might be more vulnerable to cannabis use to self-medicate their distress, and cannabis use may trigger negative moods and suicidal thinking in some people,” said Dr. Volkow.

“It is also possible that these factors are not causally linked to one another at all but rather reflect the common and related risk factors underlying both suicidality and substance use. For instance, one’s genetics may put them at a higher risk for both suicide and for using marijuana,” she added.

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Marked increase in use

Cannabis use among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past 10 years, with a parallel increase in suicidality. However, the links between cannabis use and suicidality among young adults are poorly understood.

NIDA researchers sought to fill this gap. They examined data on 281,650 young men and women aged 18 to 34 years who participated in National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2008 to 2019.

Status regarding past-year cannabis use was categorized as past-year daily or near-daily use (greater than or equal to 300 days), non-daily use, and no cannabis use.

Although suicidality was associated with cannabis use, even young adults who did not use cannabis on a daily basis were more likely to have suicidal thoughts or actions than those who did not use the drug at all, the researchers found.

Among young adults without a major depressive episode, about 3% of those who did not use cannabis had suicidal ideation, compared with about 7% of non-daily cannabis users, about 9% of daily cannabis users, and 14% of those with a cannabis use disorder.

Among young adults with depression, the corresponding percentages were 35%, 44%, 53%, and 50%.

Similar trends existed for the associations between the different levels of cannabis use and suicide plan or attempt.
 

Women at greatest risk

Gender differences also emerged. Women who used cannabis at any level were more likely to have suicidal ideation or report a suicide plan or attempt than men with the same levels of cannabis use.

Among those without a major depressive episode, the prevalence of suicidal ideation for those with versus without a cannabis use disorder was around 14% versus 4.0% among women and 10% versus 3.0% among men.

Among young adults with both cannabis use disorder and major depressive episode, the prevalence of past-year suicide plan was 52% higher for women (24%) than for men (16%).

“Suicide is a leading cause of death among young adults in the United States, and the findings of this study offer important information that may help us reduce this risk,” lead author and NIDA researcher Beth Han, MD, PhD, MPH, said in a news release.

“Depression and cannabis use disorder are treatable conditions, and cannabis use can be modified. Through better understanding the associations of different risk factors for suicidality, we hope to offer new targets for prevention and intervention in individuals that we know may be at high risk. These findings also underscore the importance of tailoring interventions in a way that takes sex and gender into account,” said Dr. Han.

“Additional research is needed to better understand these complex associations, especially given the great burden of suicide on young adults,” said Dr. Volkow.
 

Gender difference ‘striking’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, said this study is “clearly of great interest; of course correlation and causality are completely distinct entities, and this study is all about correlation.

“This does not, of course, mean that cannabis use causes suicide but suggests that in individuals who use cannabis, suicidality in the broadest sense is increased in prevalence rate,” said Dr. Nemeroff, who serves as principal investigator of the Texas Child Trauma Network.

Dr. Nemeroff said “the most striking finding” was the larger effect in women than men – “striking because suicide is, in almost all cultures, higher in prevalence in men versus women.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he’d like to know more about other potential contributing factors, “which would include a history of child abuse and neglect, a major vulnerability factor for suicidality, comorbid alcohol and other substance abuse, [and] comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as posttraumatic stress disorder.”

The study was sponsored by NIDA, of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkow, Dr. Han, and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young adults who use cannabis – either sporadically, daily, or those who have cannabis use disorder – have a significantly increased risk for suicidal thoughts and actions, according to U.S. national drug survey data.

The risks appear greater for women than men and remained regardless of whether the individual was depressed.

“We cannot establish that cannabis use caused increased suicidality,” Nora Volkow, MD, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), told this news organization.

“However, it is likely that these two factors influence one another bidirectionally, meaning people with suicidal thinking might be more vulnerable to cannabis use to self-medicate their distress, and cannabis use may trigger negative moods and suicidal thinking in some people,” said Dr. Volkow.

“It is also possible that these factors are not causally linked to one another at all but rather reflect the common and related risk factors underlying both suicidality and substance use. For instance, one’s genetics may put them at a higher risk for both suicide and for using marijuana,” she added.

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Marked increase in use

Cannabis use among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past 10 years, with a parallel increase in suicidality. However, the links between cannabis use and suicidality among young adults are poorly understood.

NIDA researchers sought to fill this gap. They examined data on 281,650 young men and women aged 18 to 34 years who participated in National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2008 to 2019.

Status regarding past-year cannabis use was categorized as past-year daily or near-daily use (greater than or equal to 300 days), non-daily use, and no cannabis use.

Although suicidality was associated with cannabis use, even young adults who did not use cannabis on a daily basis were more likely to have suicidal thoughts or actions than those who did not use the drug at all, the researchers found.

Among young adults without a major depressive episode, about 3% of those who did not use cannabis had suicidal ideation, compared with about 7% of non-daily cannabis users, about 9% of daily cannabis users, and 14% of those with a cannabis use disorder.

Among young adults with depression, the corresponding percentages were 35%, 44%, 53%, and 50%.

Similar trends existed for the associations between the different levels of cannabis use and suicide plan or attempt.
 

Women at greatest risk

Gender differences also emerged. Women who used cannabis at any level were more likely to have suicidal ideation or report a suicide plan or attempt than men with the same levels of cannabis use.

Among those without a major depressive episode, the prevalence of suicidal ideation for those with versus without a cannabis use disorder was around 14% versus 4.0% among women and 10% versus 3.0% among men.

Among young adults with both cannabis use disorder and major depressive episode, the prevalence of past-year suicide plan was 52% higher for women (24%) than for men (16%).

“Suicide is a leading cause of death among young adults in the United States, and the findings of this study offer important information that may help us reduce this risk,” lead author and NIDA researcher Beth Han, MD, PhD, MPH, said in a news release.

“Depression and cannabis use disorder are treatable conditions, and cannabis use can be modified. Through better understanding the associations of different risk factors for suicidality, we hope to offer new targets for prevention and intervention in individuals that we know may be at high risk. These findings also underscore the importance of tailoring interventions in a way that takes sex and gender into account,” said Dr. Han.

“Additional research is needed to better understand these complex associations, especially given the great burden of suicide on young adults,” said Dr. Volkow.
 

Gender difference ‘striking’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, said this study is “clearly of great interest; of course correlation and causality are completely distinct entities, and this study is all about correlation.

“This does not, of course, mean that cannabis use causes suicide but suggests that in individuals who use cannabis, suicidality in the broadest sense is increased in prevalence rate,” said Dr. Nemeroff, who serves as principal investigator of the Texas Child Trauma Network.

Dr. Nemeroff said “the most striking finding” was the larger effect in women than men – “striking because suicide is, in almost all cultures, higher in prevalence in men versus women.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he’d like to know more about other potential contributing factors, “which would include a history of child abuse and neglect, a major vulnerability factor for suicidality, comorbid alcohol and other substance abuse, [and] comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as posttraumatic stress disorder.”

The study was sponsored by NIDA, of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkow, Dr. Han, and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young adults who use cannabis – either sporadically, daily, or those who have cannabis use disorder – have a significantly increased risk for suicidal thoughts and actions, according to U.S. national drug survey data.

The risks appear greater for women than men and remained regardless of whether the individual was depressed.

“We cannot establish that cannabis use caused increased suicidality,” Nora Volkow, MD, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), told this news organization.

“However, it is likely that these two factors influence one another bidirectionally, meaning people with suicidal thinking might be more vulnerable to cannabis use to self-medicate their distress, and cannabis use may trigger negative moods and suicidal thinking in some people,” said Dr. Volkow.

“It is also possible that these factors are not causally linked to one another at all but rather reflect the common and related risk factors underlying both suicidality and substance use. For instance, one’s genetics may put them at a higher risk for both suicide and for using marijuana,” she added.

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Marked increase in use

Cannabis use among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past 10 years, with a parallel increase in suicidality. However, the links between cannabis use and suicidality among young adults are poorly understood.

NIDA researchers sought to fill this gap. They examined data on 281,650 young men and women aged 18 to 34 years who participated in National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2008 to 2019.

Status regarding past-year cannabis use was categorized as past-year daily or near-daily use (greater than or equal to 300 days), non-daily use, and no cannabis use.

Although suicidality was associated with cannabis use, even young adults who did not use cannabis on a daily basis were more likely to have suicidal thoughts or actions than those who did not use the drug at all, the researchers found.

Among young adults without a major depressive episode, about 3% of those who did not use cannabis had suicidal ideation, compared with about 7% of non-daily cannabis users, about 9% of daily cannabis users, and 14% of those with a cannabis use disorder.

Among young adults with depression, the corresponding percentages were 35%, 44%, 53%, and 50%.

Similar trends existed for the associations between the different levels of cannabis use and suicide plan or attempt.
 

Women at greatest risk

Gender differences also emerged. Women who used cannabis at any level were more likely to have suicidal ideation or report a suicide plan or attempt than men with the same levels of cannabis use.

Among those without a major depressive episode, the prevalence of suicidal ideation for those with versus without a cannabis use disorder was around 14% versus 4.0% among women and 10% versus 3.0% among men.

Among young adults with both cannabis use disorder and major depressive episode, the prevalence of past-year suicide plan was 52% higher for women (24%) than for men (16%).

“Suicide is a leading cause of death among young adults in the United States, and the findings of this study offer important information that may help us reduce this risk,” lead author and NIDA researcher Beth Han, MD, PhD, MPH, said in a news release.

“Depression and cannabis use disorder are treatable conditions, and cannabis use can be modified. Through better understanding the associations of different risk factors for suicidality, we hope to offer new targets for prevention and intervention in individuals that we know may be at high risk. These findings also underscore the importance of tailoring interventions in a way that takes sex and gender into account,” said Dr. Han.

“Additional research is needed to better understand these complex associations, especially given the great burden of suicide on young adults,” said Dr. Volkow.
 

Gender difference ‘striking’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, said this study is “clearly of great interest; of course correlation and causality are completely distinct entities, and this study is all about correlation.

“This does not, of course, mean that cannabis use causes suicide but suggests that in individuals who use cannabis, suicidality in the broadest sense is increased in prevalence rate,” said Dr. Nemeroff, who serves as principal investigator of the Texas Child Trauma Network.

Dr. Nemeroff said “the most striking finding” was the larger effect in women than men – “striking because suicide is, in almost all cultures, higher in prevalence in men versus women.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he’d like to know more about other potential contributing factors, “which would include a history of child abuse and neglect, a major vulnerability factor for suicidality, comorbid alcohol and other substance abuse, [and] comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as posttraumatic stress disorder.”

The study was sponsored by NIDA, of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkow, Dr. Han, and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer specialist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at the latest data in metastatic breast cancer presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Carey reviews an updated analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. This report showed that the observed survival benefit with the combination is maintained out to 6 years.

Next, she describes another updated survival analysis, this time from the MONALEESA-3 trial, which assessed fulvestrant plus another CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. Again, the combination was associated with a survival benefit of almost 5 years, as well as a delay in subsequent chemotherapy.

Dr. Carey then reviews the Chinese sysucc-002 trial of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy added to trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ disease. With noninferior outcomes and lower toxicity, trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy could become the preferred option and allow women to avoid chemotherapy.

She next turns to a subanalysis of the ASCENT trial, which examined sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated triple-negative disease. Even in the second-line metastatic setting, the drug showed a survival benefit.

Dr. Carey concludes by discussing a study that gathered patients’ views on treatment-related adverse effects, finding that over 90% would be willing to discuss alternative dosing options to improve their quality of life.

--

Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor, Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Deputy Director, Clinical Sciences, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Institution received research funding from: AbbVie; Immunomedics; NanoString Technologies; Novartis; Seattle Genetics; Syndax; Veracyte

Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme.

Other uncompensated relationships through institution: Aptitude Health; AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Exact Sciences; G1 Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Sanofi.

Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer specialist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at the latest data in metastatic breast cancer presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Carey reviews an updated analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. This report showed that the observed survival benefit with the combination is maintained out to 6 years.

Next, she describes another updated survival analysis, this time from the MONALEESA-3 trial, which assessed fulvestrant plus another CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. Again, the combination was associated with a survival benefit of almost 5 years, as well as a delay in subsequent chemotherapy.

Dr. Carey then reviews the Chinese sysucc-002 trial of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy added to trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ disease. With noninferior outcomes and lower toxicity, trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy could become the preferred option and allow women to avoid chemotherapy.

She next turns to a subanalysis of the ASCENT trial, which examined sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated triple-negative disease. Even in the second-line metastatic setting, the drug showed a survival benefit.

Dr. Carey concludes by discussing a study that gathered patients’ views on treatment-related adverse effects, finding that over 90% would be willing to discuss alternative dosing options to improve their quality of life.

--

Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor, Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Deputy Director, Clinical Sciences, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Institution received research funding from: AbbVie; Immunomedics; NanoString Technologies; Novartis; Seattle Genetics; Syndax; Veracyte

Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme.

Other uncompensated relationships through institution: Aptitude Health; AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Exact Sciences; G1 Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Sanofi.

Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer specialist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at the latest data in metastatic breast cancer presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Carey reviews an updated analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. This report showed that the observed survival benefit with the combination is maintained out to 6 years.

Next, she describes another updated survival analysis, this time from the MONALEESA-3 trial, which assessed fulvestrant plus another CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. Again, the combination was associated with a survival benefit of almost 5 years, as well as a delay in subsequent chemotherapy.

Dr. Carey then reviews the Chinese sysucc-002 trial of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy added to trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ disease. With noninferior outcomes and lower toxicity, trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy could become the preferred option and allow women to avoid chemotherapy.

She next turns to a subanalysis of the ASCENT trial, which examined sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated triple-negative disease. Even in the second-line metastatic setting, the drug showed a survival benefit.

Dr. Carey concludes by discussing a study that gathered patients’ views on treatment-related adverse effects, finding that over 90% would be willing to discuss alternative dosing options to improve their quality of life.

--

Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor, Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Deputy Director, Clinical Sciences, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Institution received research funding from: AbbVie; Immunomedics; NanoString Technologies; Novartis; Seattle Genetics; Syndax; Veracyte

Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme.

Other uncompensated relationships through institution: Aptitude Health; AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Exact Sciences; G1 Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Sanofi.

Dr. Harold Burstein, breast cancer specialist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses practice-changing research and advances in early-stage breast cancer from the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

He first reports on OlympiA, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant olaparib after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-risk HR+/HER2- disease. The results showed a substantial invasive and distant disease-free survival benefit and underscored the need for genetic testing for BRCA mutations in patients with early-stage disease.

Next, he discusses two studies in triple-negative breast cancer. EA1131 was a phase 3 postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy vs capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The negative results suggested that additional chemotherapy does not improve outcomes.

In contrast, adding durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved outcomes in GeparNuevo, calling into question whether the drug is needed in the later adjuvant setting.

Next, Dr. Burstein looks at the ADAPT-HR-/HER2+ trial of de-escalated neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, which suggested that patients with early pathologic complete responses may be suitable for further de-escalation.

Finally, he reports on a retrospective analysis of more than 330,000 US individuals that puts the well-known financial toxicity associated with cancer care into numbers and shows the impact on people’s lives beyond their diagnosis.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Harold Burstein, breast cancer specialist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses practice-changing research and advances in early-stage breast cancer from the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

He first reports on OlympiA, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant olaparib after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-risk HR+/HER2- disease. The results showed a substantial invasive and distant disease-free survival benefit and underscored the need for genetic testing for BRCA mutations in patients with early-stage disease.

Next, he discusses two studies in triple-negative breast cancer. EA1131 was a phase 3 postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy vs capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The negative results suggested that additional chemotherapy does not improve outcomes.

In contrast, adding durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved outcomes in GeparNuevo, calling into question whether the drug is needed in the later adjuvant setting.

Next, Dr. Burstein looks at the ADAPT-HR-/HER2+ trial of de-escalated neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, which suggested that patients with early pathologic complete responses may be suitable for further de-escalation.

Finally, he reports on a retrospective analysis of more than 330,000 US individuals that puts the well-known financial toxicity associated with cancer care into numbers and shows the impact on people’s lives beyond their diagnosis.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Harold Burstein, breast cancer specialist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses practice-changing research and advances in early-stage breast cancer from the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

He first reports on OlympiA, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant olaparib after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-risk HR+/HER2- disease. The results showed a substantial invasive and distant disease-free survival benefit and underscored the need for genetic testing for BRCA mutations in patients with early-stage disease.

Next, he discusses two studies in triple-negative breast cancer. EA1131 was a phase 3 postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy vs capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The negative results suggested that additional chemotherapy does not improve outcomes.

In contrast, adding durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved outcomes in GeparNuevo, calling into question whether the drug is needed in the later adjuvant setting.

Next, Dr. Burstein looks at the ADAPT-HR-/HER2+ trial of de-escalated neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, which suggested that patients with early pathologic complete responses may be suitable for further de-escalation.

Finally, he reports on a retrospective analysis of more than 330,000 US individuals that puts the well-known financial toxicity associated with cancer care into numbers and shows the impact on people’s lives beyond their diagnosis.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Insulet’s investigational Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes aged as young as 2 years, new data suggest.

The Omnipod 5 system combines a tubing-free insulin-filled delivery “Pod” with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm built into the Pod connecting the two devices via a smartphone app to semiautomate insulin delivery. It is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. The company expects to launch it in limited release during the second half of 2021. 

Results from a pivotal trial of the system in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Follow-up data at 6 months were also presented for another pivotal study of 112 children aged 6-13.9 years and 129 adults aged 14-70 years. Those primary 3-month data were reported earlier this year at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting and subsequently published online June 7, 2021, in Diabetes Care. Another study presented at ADA looked at quality of life in children using Omnipod 5 and their caregivers. 

If approved by the FDA, the Omnipod 5 would be the third commercially available automated insulin delivery system – also called hybrid closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems – in the United States. It would be the second approved for children as young as 2 years of age and the first to deliver insulin subcutaneously without tubing.
 

‘No-tubing’ feature will be a draw for parents of young children

Asked to comment, pediatric endocrinologist Laura M. Jacobsen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview: “I think the big advantage for the Omnipod 5 is that [if approved it will be] the only tubeless automated insulin delivery system in the U.S.”

“The automated delivery systems have just been wonderful for helping patients achieve time in range, especially overnight. And the fact that this goes down to such a young age where that can be very difficult is wonderful.”

Another difference between the Omnipod 5 and other systems is the ability to adjust glucose targets (from 110 to 150 mg/dL), although newer versions of the currently available hybrid closed-loop systems are expected to include that feature as well. “They’re all slightly different in the way the algorithms work, but I think the end result is similar,” Dr. Jacobsen said.

But, she said, the no-tubing feature might be particularly helpful for some very active young kids. “A lot of small kids do use the tubed pumps, and you can make it work with a lot of kids, but with some kids it just won’t ... the tubing gets caught. I think this really helps parents make the step. A lot of them don’t want to try the tubing whereas they see the Omnipod and might feel a little more confidence to try a pump.”

Overall, said Dr. Jacobsen, who has no financial disclosures with Insulet, Dexcom, or any of their competitors, “I think any addition to the technology field to improve quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes is important and people need choices.”
 

Pivotal data show benefit in ‘difficult-to-manage’ preschool children

Pivotal 3-month data for the Omnipod 5 in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented on June 26 by pediatric endocrinologist Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“As a pediatric endocrinologist, I can attest to the difficulty of managing this age group, due to grazing eating patterns and erratic physical activity. Oftentimes, care providers may fear hypoglycemia as these youth can not verbalize or self-treat lows,” she remarked.

A total of 80 children were enrolled at 10 institutions across the United Sates. There was a single 14-day standard therapy phase (baseline), followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery during which the children’s eating and exercise were unrestricted.

At 3 months, average hemoglobin A1c had fallen from 7.4% at baseline to 6.9%, a significant difference (P < .05). The proportions achieving the target A1c of less than 7% were 54% at 3 months versus 31% at baseline. The reduction was even greater among the 25 with baseline A1c of 8% or greater, although it was significant even among the 55 who started with a lower A1c (–1.06 vs. –0.31 percentage points; both P < .05). 

Time in range rose from 57.2% at baseline to 68.1% at 3 months (P < .05).

“These youngsters are spending an average of 2.6 more hours/day in range,” Dr. Sherr commented, noting that the difference became apparent shortly after study start and was maintained during the 3 months.

Dr. Sherr noted that this 10.9% improvement in time in range with Omnipod 5 was similar to improvements in the previously reported pivotal study of older children and adults. Data from that study showed improvement in time in range from a gain of 15.6% for the 6 to 13.9 year olds to 8.0% for those aged 26-49 years. Interestingly, improvements in time in range were seen even in the oldest group, aged 50-70, who increased from an already high baseline of 69.9% to 79.1% with Omnipod 5 after 3 months.

In her current study, in the youngest age group, the improvement in time in range was achieved primarily by a reduction of time above range, from 2.4 fewer hours/day above 180 mg/dL, while time below 70 mg/dL was reduced by 4 minutes/day. Overnight time in range improved by 1.4 hours/night, with most of the improvements in reduction of hyperglycemia.

The proportions meeting the combined goals of less than 4% time below range and greater than 60% time in range rose from 29% to 65%.

There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during the 3-month study phase.

Another important related metric, sleep quality for parents/caregivers, also improved. The percentage reporting overall sleep quality of “very good” or “fairly good” increased from 65% at baseline to 90% with Omnipod 5, while “very bad” sleep quality fell from 8.8% to 0%.

All 80 patients completed the study and elected to continue in a 12-month extension phase.
 

Ongoing benefit seen in older children and adults

In a late-breaking poster presented on June 25, Anders L. Carlson, MD, medical director at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, presented more follow-up data to the previously reported 3-month pivotal study, including 108 older children and 109 adults from the original study.

A1c remained lower after 6 months than at baseline for both children and adults (P < .001). In the children, A1c levels weren’t significantly different at the end of 6 versus 3 months, while in the adults there was an additional 0.1 percentage point decrease (P < .01).

There was one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and no severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 3-month extension. “Sustained reduction of A1c indicates the potential long-term benefit of the Omnipod 5 System,” Dr. Carlson and colleagues concluded.
 

Reduced diabetes distress, don’t forget parents’ quality of life

Meanwhile, psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, presented quality of life data at the meeting for 83 children aged 6-11.9 years and 42 teens aged 12-17.9 years using the Omnipod 5 from the larger study population and their parents.

Significant improvements were seen for both the youth and their caregivers in the Problem Areas in Diabetes score, a measure of diabetes-related emotional distress. Changes were less dramatic on the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, although improvements were significant for the caregivers of the younger children.

“We know this is a group that is really worried about hypoglycemia across a lot of situations, not just sleep but also school and outside of the home. So, to increase their confidence to this extent I think is a pretty important finding,” Dr. Hood commented.

There were nonsignificant trends in improvement across groups on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, but overall sleep quality did significantly improve among parents of the younger children. And on the World Health Organization–5 quality of life survey, significant improvements again were seen among the caregivers of young children.

“Reduced diabetes distress and improved quality of life are key benefits of using the Omnipod 5 [automated insulin delivery] system that are complementary to the glycemic benefits achieved,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Jacobsen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherr has reported being an adviser for, consultant for, and/or grant recipient from Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Sanofi, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Hood has reported being a consultant for Cecelia Health, Havas, and Cercacor.

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

Insulet’s investigational Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes aged as young as 2 years, new data suggest.

The Omnipod 5 system combines a tubing-free insulin-filled delivery “Pod” with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm built into the Pod connecting the two devices via a smartphone app to semiautomate insulin delivery. It is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. The company expects to launch it in limited release during the second half of 2021. 

Results from a pivotal trial of the system in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Follow-up data at 6 months were also presented for another pivotal study of 112 children aged 6-13.9 years and 129 adults aged 14-70 years. Those primary 3-month data were reported earlier this year at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting and subsequently published online June 7, 2021, in Diabetes Care. Another study presented at ADA looked at quality of life in children using Omnipod 5 and their caregivers. 

If approved by the FDA, the Omnipod 5 would be the third commercially available automated insulin delivery system – also called hybrid closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems – in the United States. It would be the second approved for children as young as 2 years of age and the first to deliver insulin subcutaneously without tubing.
 

‘No-tubing’ feature will be a draw for parents of young children

Asked to comment, pediatric endocrinologist Laura M. Jacobsen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview: “I think the big advantage for the Omnipod 5 is that [if approved it will be] the only tubeless automated insulin delivery system in the U.S.”

“The automated delivery systems have just been wonderful for helping patients achieve time in range, especially overnight. And the fact that this goes down to such a young age where that can be very difficult is wonderful.”

Another difference between the Omnipod 5 and other systems is the ability to adjust glucose targets (from 110 to 150 mg/dL), although newer versions of the currently available hybrid closed-loop systems are expected to include that feature as well. “They’re all slightly different in the way the algorithms work, but I think the end result is similar,” Dr. Jacobsen said.

But, she said, the no-tubing feature might be particularly helpful for some very active young kids. “A lot of small kids do use the tubed pumps, and you can make it work with a lot of kids, but with some kids it just won’t ... the tubing gets caught. I think this really helps parents make the step. A lot of them don’t want to try the tubing whereas they see the Omnipod and might feel a little more confidence to try a pump.”

Overall, said Dr. Jacobsen, who has no financial disclosures with Insulet, Dexcom, or any of their competitors, “I think any addition to the technology field to improve quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes is important and people need choices.”
 

Pivotal data show benefit in ‘difficult-to-manage’ preschool children

Pivotal 3-month data for the Omnipod 5 in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented on June 26 by pediatric endocrinologist Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“As a pediatric endocrinologist, I can attest to the difficulty of managing this age group, due to grazing eating patterns and erratic physical activity. Oftentimes, care providers may fear hypoglycemia as these youth can not verbalize or self-treat lows,” she remarked.

A total of 80 children were enrolled at 10 institutions across the United Sates. There was a single 14-day standard therapy phase (baseline), followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery during which the children’s eating and exercise were unrestricted.

At 3 months, average hemoglobin A1c had fallen from 7.4% at baseline to 6.9%, a significant difference (P < .05). The proportions achieving the target A1c of less than 7% were 54% at 3 months versus 31% at baseline. The reduction was even greater among the 25 with baseline A1c of 8% or greater, although it was significant even among the 55 who started with a lower A1c (–1.06 vs. –0.31 percentage points; both P < .05). 

Time in range rose from 57.2% at baseline to 68.1% at 3 months (P < .05).

“These youngsters are spending an average of 2.6 more hours/day in range,” Dr. Sherr commented, noting that the difference became apparent shortly after study start and was maintained during the 3 months.

Dr. Sherr noted that this 10.9% improvement in time in range with Omnipod 5 was similar to improvements in the previously reported pivotal study of older children and adults. Data from that study showed improvement in time in range from a gain of 15.6% for the 6 to 13.9 year olds to 8.0% for those aged 26-49 years. Interestingly, improvements in time in range were seen even in the oldest group, aged 50-70, who increased from an already high baseline of 69.9% to 79.1% with Omnipod 5 after 3 months.

In her current study, in the youngest age group, the improvement in time in range was achieved primarily by a reduction of time above range, from 2.4 fewer hours/day above 180 mg/dL, while time below 70 mg/dL was reduced by 4 minutes/day. Overnight time in range improved by 1.4 hours/night, with most of the improvements in reduction of hyperglycemia.

The proportions meeting the combined goals of less than 4% time below range and greater than 60% time in range rose from 29% to 65%.

There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during the 3-month study phase.

Another important related metric, sleep quality for parents/caregivers, also improved. The percentage reporting overall sleep quality of “very good” or “fairly good” increased from 65% at baseline to 90% with Omnipod 5, while “very bad” sleep quality fell from 8.8% to 0%.

All 80 patients completed the study and elected to continue in a 12-month extension phase.
 

Ongoing benefit seen in older children and adults

In a late-breaking poster presented on June 25, Anders L. Carlson, MD, medical director at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, presented more follow-up data to the previously reported 3-month pivotal study, including 108 older children and 109 adults from the original study.

A1c remained lower after 6 months than at baseline for both children and adults (P < .001). In the children, A1c levels weren’t significantly different at the end of 6 versus 3 months, while in the adults there was an additional 0.1 percentage point decrease (P < .01).

There was one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and no severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 3-month extension. “Sustained reduction of A1c indicates the potential long-term benefit of the Omnipod 5 System,” Dr. Carlson and colleagues concluded.
 

Reduced diabetes distress, don’t forget parents’ quality of life

Meanwhile, psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, presented quality of life data at the meeting for 83 children aged 6-11.9 years and 42 teens aged 12-17.9 years using the Omnipod 5 from the larger study population and their parents.

Significant improvements were seen for both the youth and their caregivers in the Problem Areas in Diabetes score, a measure of diabetes-related emotional distress. Changes were less dramatic on the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, although improvements were significant for the caregivers of the younger children.

“We know this is a group that is really worried about hypoglycemia across a lot of situations, not just sleep but also school and outside of the home. So, to increase their confidence to this extent I think is a pretty important finding,” Dr. Hood commented.

There were nonsignificant trends in improvement across groups on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, but overall sleep quality did significantly improve among parents of the younger children. And on the World Health Organization–5 quality of life survey, significant improvements again were seen among the caregivers of young children.

“Reduced diabetes distress and improved quality of life are key benefits of using the Omnipod 5 [automated insulin delivery] system that are complementary to the glycemic benefits achieved,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Jacobsen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherr has reported being an adviser for, consultant for, and/or grant recipient from Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Sanofi, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Hood has reported being a consultant for Cecelia Health, Havas, and Cercacor.

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

Insulet’s investigational Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes aged as young as 2 years, new data suggest.

The Omnipod 5 system combines a tubing-free insulin-filled delivery “Pod” with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm built into the Pod connecting the two devices via a smartphone app to semiautomate insulin delivery. It is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. The company expects to launch it in limited release during the second half of 2021. 

Results from a pivotal trial of the system in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Follow-up data at 6 months were also presented for another pivotal study of 112 children aged 6-13.9 years and 129 adults aged 14-70 years. Those primary 3-month data were reported earlier this year at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting and subsequently published online June 7, 2021, in Diabetes Care. Another study presented at ADA looked at quality of life in children using Omnipod 5 and their caregivers. 

If approved by the FDA, the Omnipod 5 would be the third commercially available automated insulin delivery system – also called hybrid closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems – in the United States. It would be the second approved for children as young as 2 years of age and the first to deliver insulin subcutaneously without tubing.
 

‘No-tubing’ feature will be a draw for parents of young children

Asked to comment, pediatric endocrinologist Laura M. Jacobsen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview: “I think the big advantage for the Omnipod 5 is that [if approved it will be] the only tubeless automated insulin delivery system in the U.S.”

“The automated delivery systems have just been wonderful for helping patients achieve time in range, especially overnight. And the fact that this goes down to such a young age where that can be very difficult is wonderful.”

Another difference between the Omnipod 5 and other systems is the ability to adjust glucose targets (from 110 to 150 mg/dL), although newer versions of the currently available hybrid closed-loop systems are expected to include that feature as well. “They’re all slightly different in the way the algorithms work, but I think the end result is similar,” Dr. Jacobsen said.

But, she said, the no-tubing feature might be particularly helpful for some very active young kids. “A lot of small kids do use the tubed pumps, and you can make it work with a lot of kids, but with some kids it just won’t ... the tubing gets caught. I think this really helps parents make the step. A lot of them don’t want to try the tubing whereas they see the Omnipod and might feel a little more confidence to try a pump.”

Overall, said Dr. Jacobsen, who has no financial disclosures with Insulet, Dexcom, or any of their competitors, “I think any addition to the technology field to improve quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes is important and people need choices.”
 

Pivotal data show benefit in ‘difficult-to-manage’ preschool children

Pivotal 3-month data for the Omnipod 5 in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented on June 26 by pediatric endocrinologist Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“As a pediatric endocrinologist, I can attest to the difficulty of managing this age group, due to grazing eating patterns and erratic physical activity. Oftentimes, care providers may fear hypoglycemia as these youth can not verbalize or self-treat lows,” she remarked.

A total of 80 children were enrolled at 10 institutions across the United Sates. There was a single 14-day standard therapy phase (baseline), followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery during which the children’s eating and exercise were unrestricted.

At 3 months, average hemoglobin A1c had fallen from 7.4% at baseline to 6.9%, a significant difference (P < .05). The proportions achieving the target A1c of less than 7% were 54% at 3 months versus 31% at baseline. The reduction was even greater among the 25 with baseline A1c of 8% or greater, although it was significant even among the 55 who started with a lower A1c (–1.06 vs. –0.31 percentage points; both P < .05). 

Time in range rose from 57.2% at baseline to 68.1% at 3 months (P < .05).

“These youngsters are spending an average of 2.6 more hours/day in range,” Dr. Sherr commented, noting that the difference became apparent shortly after study start and was maintained during the 3 months.

Dr. Sherr noted that this 10.9% improvement in time in range with Omnipod 5 was similar to improvements in the previously reported pivotal study of older children and adults. Data from that study showed improvement in time in range from a gain of 15.6% for the 6 to 13.9 year olds to 8.0% for those aged 26-49 years. Interestingly, improvements in time in range were seen even in the oldest group, aged 50-70, who increased from an already high baseline of 69.9% to 79.1% with Omnipod 5 after 3 months.

In her current study, in the youngest age group, the improvement in time in range was achieved primarily by a reduction of time above range, from 2.4 fewer hours/day above 180 mg/dL, while time below 70 mg/dL was reduced by 4 minutes/day. Overnight time in range improved by 1.4 hours/night, with most of the improvements in reduction of hyperglycemia.

The proportions meeting the combined goals of less than 4% time below range and greater than 60% time in range rose from 29% to 65%.

There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during the 3-month study phase.

Another important related metric, sleep quality for parents/caregivers, also improved. The percentage reporting overall sleep quality of “very good” or “fairly good” increased from 65% at baseline to 90% with Omnipod 5, while “very bad” sleep quality fell from 8.8% to 0%.

All 80 patients completed the study and elected to continue in a 12-month extension phase.
 

Ongoing benefit seen in older children and adults

In a late-breaking poster presented on June 25, Anders L. Carlson, MD, medical director at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, presented more follow-up data to the previously reported 3-month pivotal study, including 108 older children and 109 adults from the original study.

A1c remained lower after 6 months than at baseline for both children and adults (P < .001). In the children, A1c levels weren’t significantly different at the end of 6 versus 3 months, while in the adults there was an additional 0.1 percentage point decrease (P < .01).

There was one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and no severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 3-month extension. “Sustained reduction of A1c indicates the potential long-term benefit of the Omnipod 5 System,” Dr. Carlson and colleagues concluded.
 

Reduced diabetes distress, don’t forget parents’ quality of life

Meanwhile, psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, presented quality of life data at the meeting for 83 children aged 6-11.9 years and 42 teens aged 12-17.9 years using the Omnipod 5 from the larger study population and their parents.

Significant improvements were seen for both the youth and their caregivers in the Problem Areas in Diabetes score, a measure of diabetes-related emotional distress. Changes were less dramatic on the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, although improvements were significant for the caregivers of the younger children.

“We know this is a group that is really worried about hypoglycemia across a lot of situations, not just sleep but also school and outside of the home. So, to increase their confidence to this extent I think is a pretty important finding,” Dr. Hood commented.

There were nonsignificant trends in improvement across groups on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, but overall sleep quality did significantly improve among parents of the younger children. And on the World Health Organization–5 quality of life survey, significant improvements again were seen among the caregivers of young children.

“Reduced diabetes distress and improved quality of life are key benefits of using the Omnipod 5 [automated insulin delivery] system that are complementary to the glycemic benefits achieved,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Jacobsen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherr has reported being an adviser for, consultant for, and/or grant recipient from Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Sanofi, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Hood has reported being a consultant for Cecelia Health, Havas, and Cercacor.

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

For racial or ethnic minority youths with type 1 diabetes, participating in an interventional program improves access to care, new research shows.

Youth categorized as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) had significantly improved outpatient attendance during and after participating in Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), a systems intervention for children with chronic health conditions and their families.

By comparison, no improvements in care access were observed among BIPOC children who were not able to access the program because of insurance or other reasons, David V. Wagner, PhD, Associate Professor and NICH research director at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The findings demonstrate a need for intensive, home-based services that aim to correct health inequities, said Dr. Wagner, who presented the findings along with Winniebhelle Cadiz, a scholar in the BUILD EXITO undergraduate research training program at Portland (Ore.) State University.

The NICH program hinges on trained interventionists who visit families at home, attend clinic visits, and work with schools and other contacts to help solve problems that keep children from following medical instructions, according to a program description.

“Families report having somebody by their side to help them navigate the system, address the transportation difficulties experienced, and help them and build that relationship with their health care provider seems to be hugely influential in terms of helping them navigate and access care,” Dr. Wagner said in a presentation of the study.
 

A NICH for youths with chronic health conditions

The NICH program differs from some other programs that have been developed in an attempt to improve health outcomes among youths in the community, according to Dr. Wagner.

“Many of the programs that exist out there are often piloted on, and seemingly built for, those who have more resources,” he said in his presentation. “Those who are in greatest need often have difficulty accessing and responding to the services.”

NICH doesn’t take the place of existing services, but is “an addition to the continuum of care” for youths and families who are struggling because of lack of resources or marginalization in the health care system, Dr. Wagner said.

While NICH is not specific to any one chronic health condition, several previous investigations have specifically looked at the impact of the NICH program on access to care in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Youths participating in the program for a year had fewer ED visits, including fewer visits with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), as well as fewer and shorter admissions as compared with the year prior to participating in the program, Dr. Wagner said.

In another study, youths had fewer admissions for diabetes or DKA and less frequent pediatric ICU contact during the NICH program, as compared with before the program.

Another study showed that, while NICH had no impact overall on access to care among youths with type 1 diabetes, BIPOC youths had an improvement in the mean number of outpatient visits as compared with preprogram levels. However, because none of those studies included a control group, Dr. Wagner said, it remained unclear whether this systems intervention might improve outpatient access among youths with type 1 diabetes as compared with those who did not participate.
 

Intervention linked to increased BIPOC care access

The latest study includes 144 youths with type 1 diabetes referred for the program. The mean age was 13.7 years, 58% were female, and 81% were non-Hispanic White. While 51 youths were able to participate in NICH, the remaining 93 were not served by the program because of insurance denial or nonresponse, according to investigators.

While participation in the program made no difference in access to care overall, results of this study suggest NICH reduced access disparities among BIPOC youths, the investigators said.

Those BIPOC youth, 28 in total, had significantly worse access to care prior to referral. However, BIPOC youth participation in NICH was associated with improved attendance at endocrinology appointments and outpatient attendance overall.

A mean change of 1.9 more appointments per year was seen among BIPOC youth who participated in NICH, compared with a mean decrease of 0.5 appointments per year among BIPOC youth not served by the program (P = .03), according to the study abstract.

Prior to NICH participation, outpatient attendance among BIPOC youths was about 2.5 visits per year, data presented by the investigators show.
 

Systemic changes needed

This study is representative of systemic changes that are needed to improve access to quality care for BIPOC youth, according Cynthia E. Muñoz, PhD, MPH, ADA’s president of health care and education.

“We know that there are increased risks for poor health outcomes for these children and youths, and we know that there is a risk for mental health and psychosocial challenges for youth from these communities,” said Dr. Muñoz, a bilingual licensed psychologist and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his presentation, Dr. Wagner said lumping racial and ethnic minority participants under a single BIPOC header probably wasn’t ideal because of the diversity and differences among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it was necessary in this particular study because of limited sample size.

Dr. Wagner and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to the research, which was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

For racial or ethnic minority youths with type 1 diabetes, participating in an interventional program improves access to care, new research shows.

Youth categorized as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) had significantly improved outpatient attendance during and after participating in Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), a systems intervention for children with chronic health conditions and their families.

By comparison, no improvements in care access were observed among BIPOC children who were not able to access the program because of insurance or other reasons, David V. Wagner, PhD, Associate Professor and NICH research director at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The findings demonstrate a need for intensive, home-based services that aim to correct health inequities, said Dr. Wagner, who presented the findings along with Winniebhelle Cadiz, a scholar in the BUILD EXITO undergraduate research training program at Portland (Ore.) State University.

The NICH program hinges on trained interventionists who visit families at home, attend clinic visits, and work with schools and other contacts to help solve problems that keep children from following medical instructions, according to a program description.

“Families report having somebody by their side to help them navigate the system, address the transportation difficulties experienced, and help them and build that relationship with their health care provider seems to be hugely influential in terms of helping them navigate and access care,” Dr. Wagner said in a presentation of the study.
 

A NICH for youths with chronic health conditions

The NICH program differs from some other programs that have been developed in an attempt to improve health outcomes among youths in the community, according to Dr. Wagner.

“Many of the programs that exist out there are often piloted on, and seemingly built for, those who have more resources,” he said in his presentation. “Those who are in greatest need often have difficulty accessing and responding to the services.”

NICH doesn’t take the place of existing services, but is “an addition to the continuum of care” for youths and families who are struggling because of lack of resources or marginalization in the health care system, Dr. Wagner said.

While NICH is not specific to any one chronic health condition, several previous investigations have specifically looked at the impact of the NICH program on access to care in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Youths participating in the program for a year had fewer ED visits, including fewer visits with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), as well as fewer and shorter admissions as compared with the year prior to participating in the program, Dr. Wagner said.

In another study, youths had fewer admissions for diabetes or DKA and less frequent pediatric ICU contact during the NICH program, as compared with before the program.

Another study showed that, while NICH had no impact overall on access to care among youths with type 1 diabetes, BIPOC youths had an improvement in the mean number of outpatient visits as compared with preprogram levels. However, because none of those studies included a control group, Dr. Wagner said, it remained unclear whether this systems intervention might improve outpatient access among youths with type 1 diabetes as compared with those who did not participate.
 

Intervention linked to increased BIPOC care access

The latest study includes 144 youths with type 1 diabetes referred for the program. The mean age was 13.7 years, 58% were female, and 81% were non-Hispanic White. While 51 youths were able to participate in NICH, the remaining 93 were not served by the program because of insurance denial or nonresponse, according to investigators.

While participation in the program made no difference in access to care overall, results of this study suggest NICH reduced access disparities among BIPOC youths, the investigators said.

Those BIPOC youth, 28 in total, had significantly worse access to care prior to referral. However, BIPOC youth participation in NICH was associated with improved attendance at endocrinology appointments and outpatient attendance overall.

A mean change of 1.9 more appointments per year was seen among BIPOC youth who participated in NICH, compared with a mean decrease of 0.5 appointments per year among BIPOC youth not served by the program (P = .03), according to the study abstract.

Prior to NICH participation, outpatient attendance among BIPOC youths was about 2.5 visits per year, data presented by the investigators show.
 

Systemic changes needed

This study is representative of systemic changes that are needed to improve access to quality care for BIPOC youth, according Cynthia E. Muñoz, PhD, MPH, ADA’s president of health care and education.

“We know that there are increased risks for poor health outcomes for these children and youths, and we know that there is a risk for mental health and psychosocial challenges for youth from these communities,” said Dr. Muñoz, a bilingual licensed psychologist and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his presentation, Dr. Wagner said lumping racial and ethnic minority participants under a single BIPOC header probably wasn’t ideal because of the diversity and differences among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it was necessary in this particular study because of limited sample size.

Dr. Wagner and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to the research, which was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

For racial or ethnic minority youths with type 1 diabetes, participating in an interventional program improves access to care, new research shows.

Youth categorized as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) had significantly improved outpatient attendance during and after participating in Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), a systems intervention for children with chronic health conditions and their families.

By comparison, no improvements in care access were observed among BIPOC children who were not able to access the program because of insurance or other reasons, David V. Wagner, PhD, Associate Professor and NICH research director at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The findings demonstrate a need for intensive, home-based services that aim to correct health inequities, said Dr. Wagner, who presented the findings along with Winniebhelle Cadiz, a scholar in the BUILD EXITO undergraduate research training program at Portland (Ore.) State University.

The NICH program hinges on trained interventionists who visit families at home, attend clinic visits, and work with schools and other contacts to help solve problems that keep children from following medical instructions, according to a program description.

“Families report having somebody by their side to help them navigate the system, address the transportation difficulties experienced, and help them and build that relationship with their health care provider seems to be hugely influential in terms of helping them navigate and access care,” Dr. Wagner said in a presentation of the study.
 

A NICH for youths with chronic health conditions

The NICH program differs from some other programs that have been developed in an attempt to improve health outcomes among youths in the community, according to Dr. Wagner.

“Many of the programs that exist out there are often piloted on, and seemingly built for, those who have more resources,” he said in his presentation. “Those who are in greatest need often have difficulty accessing and responding to the services.”

NICH doesn’t take the place of existing services, but is “an addition to the continuum of care” for youths and families who are struggling because of lack of resources or marginalization in the health care system, Dr. Wagner said.

While NICH is not specific to any one chronic health condition, several previous investigations have specifically looked at the impact of the NICH program on access to care in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Youths participating in the program for a year had fewer ED visits, including fewer visits with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), as well as fewer and shorter admissions as compared with the year prior to participating in the program, Dr. Wagner said.

In another study, youths had fewer admissions for diabetes or DKA and less frequent pediatric ICU contact during the NICH program, as compared with before the program.

Another study showed that, while NICH had no impact overall on access to care among youths with type 1 diabetes, BIPOC youths had an improvement in the mean number of outpatient visits as compared with preprogram levels. However, because none of those studies included a control group, Dr. Wagner said, it remained unclear whether this systems intervention might improve outpatient access among youths with type 1 diabetes as compared with those who did not participate.
 

Intervention linked to increased BIPOC care access

The latest study includes 144 youths with type 1 diabetes referred for the program. The mean age was 13.7 years, 58% were female, and 81% were non-Hispanic White. While 51 youths were able to participate in NICH, the remaining 93 were not served by the program because of insurance denial or nonresponse, according to investigators.

While participation in the program made no difference in access to care overall, results of this study suggest NICH reduced access disparities among BIPOC youths, the investigators said.

Those BIPOC youth, 28 in total, had significantly worse access to care prior to referral. However, BIPOC youth participation in NICH was associated with improved attendance at endocrinology appointments and outpatient attendance overall.

A mean change of 1.9 more appointments per year was seen among BIPOC youth who participated in NICH, compared with a mean decrease of 0.5 appointments per year among BIPOC youth not served by the program (P = .03), according to the study abstract.

Prior to NICH participation, outpatient attendance among BIPOC youths was about 2.5 visits per year, data presented by the investigators show.
 

Systemic changes needed

This study is representative of systemic changes that are needed to improve access to quality care for BIPOC youth, according Cynthia E. Muñoz, PhD, MPH, ADA’s president of health care and education.

“We know that there are increased risks for poor health outcomes for these children and youths, and we know that there is a risk for mental health and psychosocial challenges for youth from these communities,” said Dr. Muñoz, a bilingual licensed psychologist and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his presentation, Dr. Wagner said lumping racial and ethnic minority participants under a single BIPOC header probably wasn’t ideal because of the diversity and differences among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it was necessary in this particular study because of limited sample size.

Dr. Wagner and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to the research, which was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.¹

Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”² More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.³

However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.

Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
 

AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data

Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.⁴

Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.⁵ This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.

However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.⁶ And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.

Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”⁷

The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.⁸ In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
 

AI introduces new questions around liability

While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.

AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?

In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.⁹
 

AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it

Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”¹⁰ Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.¹¹

Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.¹²

AI can help spot the next outbreak

More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.¹³

These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
 

Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.

References

1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).

3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.

7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.

9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.

10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.

12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
 

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.¹

Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”² More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.³

However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.

Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
 

AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data

Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.⁴

Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.⁵ This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.

However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.⁶ And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.

Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”⁷

The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.⁸ In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
 

AI introduces new questions around liability

While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.

AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?

In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.⁹
 

AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it

Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”¹⁰ Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.¹¹

Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.¹²

AI can help spot the next outbreak

More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.¹³

These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
 

Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.

References

1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).

3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.

7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.

9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.

10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.

12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.
 

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven of value in the COVID-19 pandemic and shows promise for mitigating future health care crises. During the pandemic’s first wave in New York, for example, Mount Sinai Health System used an algorithm to help identify patients ready for discharge. Such systems can help overburdened hospitals manage personnel and the flow of supplies in a medical crisis so they can continue to provide superior patient care.¹

Pandemic applications have demonstrated AI’s potential not only to lift administrative burdens, but also to give physicians back what Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute and author of Deep Medicine, calls “the gift of time.”² More time with patients contributes to clear communication and positive relationships, which lower the odds of medical errors, enhance patient safety, and potentially reduce physicians’ risks of certain types of litigation.³

However, physicians and health systems will need to approach AI with caution. Many unknowns remain – including potential liability risks and the potential for worsening preexisting bias. The law will need to evolve to account for AI-related liability scenarios, some of which are yet to be imagined.

Like any emerging technology, AI brings risk, but its promise of benefit should outweigh the probability of negative consequences – provided we remain aware of and mitigate the potential for AI-induced adverse events.
 

AI’s pandemic success limited due to fragmented data

Innovation is the key to success in any crisis, and many health care providers have shown their ability to innovate with AI during the pandemic. For example, researchers at the University of California, San Diego, health system who were designing an AI program to help doctors spot pneumonia on a chest x-ray retooled their application to assist physicians fighting coronavirus.⁴

Meanwhile, AI has been used to distinguish COVID-19–specific symptoms: It was a computer sifting medical records that took anosmia, loss of the sense of smell, from an anecdotal connection to an officially recognized early symptom of the virus.⁵ This information now helps physicians distinguish COVID-19 from influenza.

However, holding back more innovation is the fragmentation of health care data in the United States. Most AI applications for medicine rely on machine learning; that is, they train on historical patient data to recognize patterns. Therefore, “Everything that we’re doing gets better with a lot more annotated datasets,” Dr. Topol says. Unfortunately, because of our disparate systems, we don’t have centralized data.⁶ And even if our data were centralized, researchers lack enough reliable COVID-19 data to perfect algorithms in the short term.

Or, put in bleaker terms by the Washington Post: “One of the biggest challenges has been that much data remains siloed inside incompatible computer systems, hoarded by business interests and tangled in geopolitics.”⁷

The good news is that machine learning and data science platform Kaggle is hosting the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset, or CORD-19, which contains well over 100,000 scholarly articles on COVID-19, SARS, and other relevant infections.⁸ In lieu of a true central repository of anonymized health data, such large datasets can help train new AI applications in search of new diagnostic tools and therapies.
 

AI introduces new questions around liability

While AI may eventually be assigned legal personhood, it is not, in fact, a person: It is a tool wielded by individual clinicians, by teams, by health systems, even multiple systems collaborating. Our current liability laws are not ready for the era of digital medicine.

AI algorithms are not perfect. Because we know that diagnostic error is already a major allegation in malpractice claims, we must ask: What happens when a patient alleges that diagnostic error occurred because a physician or physicians leaned too heavily on AI?

In the United States, testing delays have threatened the safety of patients, physicians, and the public by delaying diagnosis of COVID-19. But again, health care providers have applied real innovation – generating novel and useful ideas and applying those ideas – to this problem. For example, researchers at Mount Sinai became the first in the country to combine AI with imaging and clinical data to produce an algorithm that can detect COVID-19 based on computed tomography scans of the chest, in combination with patient information and exposure history.⁹
 

AI in health care can help mitigate bias – or worsen it

Machine learning is only as good as the information provided to train the machine. Models trained on partial datasets can skew toward demographics that turned up more often in the data – for example, White race or men over 60. There is concern that “analyses based on faulty or biased algorithms could exacerbate existing racial gaps and other disparities in health care.”¹⁰ Already during the pandemic’s first waves, multiple AI systems used to classify x-rays have been found to show racial, gender, and socioeconomic biases.¹¹

Such bias could create high potential for poor recommendations, including false positives and false negatives. It’s critical that system builders are able to explain and qualify their training data and that those who best understand AI-related system risks are the ones who influence health care systems or alter applications to mitigate AI-related harms.¹²

AI can help spot the next outbreak

More than a week before the World Health Organization released its first warning about a novel coronavirus, the AI platform BlueDot, created in Toronto, spotted an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. Meanwhile, at Boston Children’s Hospital, the AI application Healthmap was scanning social media and news sites for signs of disease cluster, and it, too, flagged the first signs of what would become the COVID-19 outbreak – days before the WHO’s first formal alert.¹³

These innovative applications of AI in health care demonstrate real promise in detecting future outbreaks of new viruses early. This will allow health care providers and public health officials to get information out sooner, reducing the load on health systems, and ultimately, saving lives.
 

Dr. Anderson is chairman and chief executive officer, The Doctors Company and TDC Group.

References

1. Gold A. “Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine” Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

2. Topol E. “Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again” (New York: Hachette Book Group; 2019:285).

3. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

4. Gold A. Coronavirus tests the value of artificial intelligence in medicine. Fierce Biotech. 2020 May 22.

5. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

6. Reuter E. Hundreds of AI solutions proposed for pandemic, but few are proven. MedCity News. 2020 May 28.

7. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

8. Lee K. COVID-19 will accelerate the AI health care revolution. Wired. 2020 May 22.

9. Mei X et al. Artificial intelligence–enabled rapid diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020 May 19;26:1224-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0931-3.

10. Cha AE. Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Can the machines save us? Washington Post. 2020 Nov 1.

11. Wiggers K. Researchers find evidence of racial, gender, and socioeconomic bias in chest X-ray classifiers. The Machine: Making Sense of AI. 2020 Oct 21.

12. The Doctors Company. “The Algorithm Will See You Now: How AI’s Healthcare Potential Outweighs Its Risk” 2020 Jan.

13. Sewalk K. Innovative disease surveillance platforms detected early warning signs for novel coronavirus outbreak (nCoV-2019). The Disease Daily. 2020 Jan 31.