WASHINGTON – Should Medicare abandon “incident to” billing for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs) as part of its move away from fee-for-service payment? Some of the experts on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission think so.

Gregory Twachtman/MDEdge News

A proposal presented at a recent MedPAC meeting would eliminate “incident to” billing – a payment policy under which an APRN or PA delivers the care but the claim is filed under a physician’s National Provider Identifier (NPI) and is paid at the Medicare physician fee schedule rate. Instead, APRNs and PAs would file claims under their own NPI and be paid at 85% of the physician fee schedule rate for any claims associated with an episode of care.

About 40% of evaluation and management (E&M) office visits conducted by APRNs on established patients were likely billed “incident to” in 2016, as were about 30% of such visits performed by PAs, MedPAC staff estimated.

“To put these numbers in context, we think that the rates of ‘incident to’ billing for NPs [nurse practitioners] and PAs mean that roughly 5% of all E&M office visits billed by physicians were likely performed by an NP or PA in 2018,” Brian O’Donnell, MedPAC policy analyst, told commissioners.

One reason for eliminating “incident to” billing is that it “obscure[s] the number of services actually furnished by NPs and PAs,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “Given the rapidly expanding number of NPs and PAs, Medicare’s ‘incident to’ rules could apply to an increasing number of services.”

MedPAC commissioner Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, expressed support for the idea but raised a red flag that the system could be manipulated so that APRN/PA claims could still be paid at 100% of the fee schedule rate.

Commissioner Bruce Pyenson, principal and consulting actuary of Milliman in New York, suggested that APRN and PA claims should be paid at 100% of the fee schedule, mirroring other Medicare efforts to achieve site-neutral payments.

Similarly, commissioner Amy Bricker, vice president of supply chain strategy at Express Scripts, St. Louis, said that while she generally does not favor redistributing program savings, if APRN and PA claims were paid at 85%, the saving generated should go back to physicians who would otherwise lose money.

That change in revenue was a key concern for Michael Munger, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We have a policy on ‘incident to’ billing at the academy,” Dr. Munger said in an interview. “It says that services that are delegated to and provided by nonphysician providers under physician supervision must be provided with the same quality and should be reimbursed at the same level as services directly provided by a physician.”

He said that lowering APRNs and PAs payments to 85% of what physicians make would impact doctors in a negative way, but if the elimination of “incident to” came with a recommendation that they be paid the same as physicians, it “would be less problematic.”

Dr. Munger described primary care as a team sport, and “this is certainly going to be felt in terms of the overall mission of delivering quality care.”

Access to care also could be reduced along with the reduced payment level, he added.

“You have to make business decisions at the end of the day,” he said. “You need to make sure that you can have adequate revenue to offset expenses, and if you are going to take a 15% cut in your revenue in, you have to look at where your expenses are, and obviously salary is your No. 1 expense. If you are not able to count on this revenue and you can’t afford to have NPs and PAs as part of the team, it is going to become an access issue for patients.”

Potential access and quality issues also resonated with the American Osteopathic Association.

“You really could see the elimination of the physician element from that practice environment and that would be to the detriment of patients,” David Pugach, AOA senior vice president of public policy, said in an interview. “Right now, you have the ability for incident billing, which requires the active participation of a physician in the management of patient care. If you end that practice, you are essentially removing the physician from the equation, and that really is an access issue; it’s a safety issue; and it’s a quality issue.”

He also noted that sometimes there is overutilization of diagnostic services with APRNs and PAs, and while costs may be saved by paying for those clinicians at less than the rate of physicians, the overutilization of other services by them could end up offsetting the savings.

“We have some significant concerns,” Mr. Pugach said.

The American Academy of Physician Assistants echoed some concerns expressed by MedPAC commissioners and staff.

“What we feel strongly about is the fact that one of the problems of ‘incident to’ is that it hides the practitioners, in this case the PA who actually renders the service,” Michael Powe, AAPA vice president of reimbursement and professional advocacy, said in an interview.

“We think that’s inappropriate for a number of reasons,” he continued. “Clearly from the issue of trying to figure who’s doing what, who saw the patient, what the quality of care happens to be, we think that PAs ought to be recognized ... and not hidden which happens under the ‘incident to’ methodology.”

He said that transparency helps determine where primary care needs are, whether they are being met, and it helps with determining network adequacy.

“So there are a number of good reasons why the accuracy and transparency should be there whether or not ‘incident to’ goes away.”

Jennifer Winter, committee chair for public education for the Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants, agreed.*

Eliminating “incident to” would grant greater visibility of PA practice “because right now, some of what we do is hidden by what the physician does” because it is billed under the physician and you can’t see what the PA is doing, especially if there is an adverse event, said Ms. Winter, who practices in Olympia, Wash. “It confounds trying to collect data on outcomes.”

She also noted that some physicians might not want to hire an NP or PA “because they can hire a physician and get 100%, but they are also going to have to pay that physician at a physician rate.”

Ms. Winter said that PAs and nurse practitioners should be getting 100% of the pay as they are doing essentially the same work that physicians would be doing.

MedPAC staffers also recommended that APRNs and PAs more clearly identify the specialty that they work in, something they do not currently have to do, to allow for more transparency and accurate data on the work that these types of clinicians are performing.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this story misspelled Ms. Winter's name.

WASHINGTON – Should Medicare abandon “incident to” billing for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs) as part of its move away from fee-for-service payment? Some of the experts on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission think so.

Gregory Twachtman/MDEdge News

A proposal presented at a recent MedPAC meeting would eliminate “incident to” billing – a payment policy under which an APRN or PA delivers the care but the claim is filed under a physician’s National Provider Identifier (NPI) and is paid at the Medicare physician fee schedule rate. Instead, APRNs and PAs would file claims under their own NPI and be paid at 85% of the physician fee schedule rate for any claims associated with an episode of care.

About 40% of evaluation and management (E&M) office visits conducted by APRNs on established patients were likely billed “incident to” in 2016, as were about 30% of such visits performed by PAs, MedPAC staff estimated.

“To put these numbers in context, we think that the rates of ‘incident to’ billing for NPs [nurse practitioners] and PAs mean that roughly 5% of all E&M office visits billed by physicians were likely performed by an NP or PA in 2018,” Brian O’Donnell, MedPAC policy analyst, told commissioners.

One reason for eliminating “incident to” billing is that it “obscure[s] the number of services actually furnished by NPs and PAs,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “Given the rapidly expanding number of NPs and PAs, Medicare’s ‘incident to’ rules could apply to an increasing number of services.”

MedPAC commissioner Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, expressed support for the idea but raised a red flag that the system could be manipulated so that APRN/PA claims could still be paid at 100% of the fee schedule rate.

Commissioner Bruce Pyenson, principal and consulting actuary of Milliman in New York, suggested that APRN and PA claims should be paid at 100% of the fee schedule, mirroring other Medicare efforts to achieve site-neutral payments.

Similarly, commissioner Amy Bricker, vice president of supply chain strategy at Express Scripts, St. Louis, said that while she generally does not favor redistributing program savings, if APRN and PA claims were paid at 85%, the saving generated should go back to physicians who would otherwise lose money.

That change in revenue was a key concern for Michael Munger, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We have a policy on ‘incident to’ billing at the academy,” Dr. Munger said in an interview. “It says that services that are delegated to and provided by nonphysician providers under physician supervision must be provided with the same quality and should be reimbursed at the same level as services directly provided by a physician.”

He said that lowering APRNs and PAs payments to 85% of what physicians make would impact doctors in a negative way, but if the elimination of “incident to” came with a recommendation that they be paid the same as physicians, it “would be less problematic.”

Dr. Munger described primary care as a team sport, and “this is certainly going to be felt in terms of the overall mission of delivering quality care.”

Access to care also could be reduced along with the reduced payment level, he added.

“You have to make business decisions at the end of the day,” he said. “You need to make sure that you can have adequate revenue to offset expenses, and if you are going to take a 15% cut in your revenue in, you have to look at where your expenses are, and obviously salary is your No. 1 expense. If you are not able to count on this revenue and you can’t afford to have NPs and PAs as part of the team, it is going to become an access issue for patients.”

Potential access and quality issues also resonated with the American Osteopathic Association.

“You really could see the elimination of the physician element from that practice environment and that would be to the detriment of patients,” David Pugach, AOA senior vice president of public policy, said in an interview. “Right now, you have the ability for incident billing, which requires the active participation of a physician in the management of patient care. If you end that practice, you are essentially removing the physician from the equation, and that really is an access issue; it’s a safety issue; and it’s a quality issue.”

He also noted that sometimes there is overutilization of diagnostic services with APRNs and PAs, and while costs may be saved by paying for those clinicians at less than the rate of physicians, the overutilization of other services by them could end up offsetting the savings.

“We have some significant concerns,” Mr. Pugach said.

The American Academy of Physician Assistants echoed some concerns expressed by MedPAC commissioners and staff.

“What we feel strongly about is the fact that one of the problems of ‘incident to’ is that it hides the practitioners, in this case the PA who actually renders the service,” Michael Powe, AAPA vice president of reimbursement and professional advocacy, said in an interview.

“We think that’s inappropriate for a number of reasons,” he continued. “Clearly from the issue of trying to figure who’s doing what, who saw the patient, what the quality of care happens to be, we think that PAs ought to be recognized ... and not hidden which happens under the ‘incident to’ methodology.”

He said that transparency helps determine where primary care needs are, whether they are being met, and it helps with determining network adequacy.

“So there are a number of good reasons why the accuracy and transparency should be there whether or not ‘incident to’ goes away.”

Jennifer Winter, committee chair for public education for the Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants, agreed.*

Eliminating “incident to” would grant greater visibility of PA practice “because right now, some of what we do is hidden by what the physician does” because it is billed under the physician and you can’t see what the PA is doing, especially if there is an adverse event, said Ms. Winter, who practices in Olympia, Wash. “It confounds trying to collect data on outcomes.”

She also noted that some physicians might not want to hire an NP or PA “because they can hire a physician and get 100%, but they are also going to have to pay that physician at a physician rate.”

Ms. Winter said that PAs and nurse practitioners should be getting 100% of the pay as they are doing essentially the same work that physicians would be doing.

MedPAC staffers also recommended that APRNs and PAs more clearly identify the specialty that they work in, something they do not currently have to do, to allow for more transparency and accurate data on the work that these types of clinicians are performing.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this story misspelled Ms. Winter's name.

WASHINGTON – Should Medicare abandon “incident to” billing for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs) as part of its move away from fee-for-service payment? Some of the experts on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission think so.

Gregory Twachtman/MDEdge News

A proposal presented at a recent MedPAC meeting would eliminate “incident to” billing – a payment policy under which an APRN or PA delivers the care but the claim is filed under a physician’s National Provider Identifier (NPI) and is paid at the Medicare physician fee schedule rate. Instead, APRNs and PAs would file claims under their own NPI and be paid at 85% of the physician fee schedule rate for any claims associated with an episode of care.

About 40% of evaluation and management (E&M) office visits conducted by APRNs on established patients were likely billed “incident to” in 2016, as were about 30% of such visits performed by PAs, MedPAC staff estimated.

“To put these numbers in context, we think that the rates of ‘incident to’ billing for NPs [nurse practitioners] and PAs mean that roughly 5% of all E&M office visits billed by physicians were likely performed by an NP or PA in 2018,” Brian O’Donnell, MedPAC policy analyst, told commissioners.

One reason for eliminating “incident to” billing is that it “obscure[s] the number of services actually furnished by NPs and PAs,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “Given the rapidly expanding number of NPs and PAs, Medicare’s ‘incident to’ rules could apply to an increasing number of services.”

MedPAC commissioner Kathy Buto, former vice president of global health policy at Johnson & Johnson, expressed support for the idea but raised a red flag that the system could be manipulated so that APRN/PA claims could still be paid at 100% of the fee schedule rate.

Commissioner Bruce Pyenson, principal and consulting actuary of Milliman in New York, suggested that APRN and PA claims should be paid at 100% of the fee schedule, mirroring other Medicare efforts to achieve site-neutral payments.

Similarly, commissioner Amy Bricker, vice president of supply chain strategy at Express Scripts, St. Louis, said that while she generally does not favor redistributing program savings, if APRN and PA claims were paid at 85%, the saving generated should go back to physicians who would otherwise lose money.

That change in revenue was a key concern for Michael Munger, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We have a policy on ‘incident to’ billing at the academy,” Dr. Munger said in an interview. “It says that services that are delegated to and provided by nonphysician providers under physician supervision must be provided with the same quality and should be reimbursed at the same level as services directly provided by a physician.”

He said that lowering APRNs and PAs payments to 85% of what physicians make would impact doctors in a negative way, but if the elimination of “incident to” came with a recommendation that they be paid the same as physicians, it “would be less problematic.”

Dr. Munger described primary care as a team sport, and “this is certainly going to be felt in terms of the overall mission of delivering quality care.”

Access to care also could be reduced along with the reduced payment level, he added.

“You have to make business decisions at the end of the day,” he said. “You need to make sure that you can have adequate revenue to offset expenses, and if you are going to take a 15% cut in your revenue in, you have to look at where your expenses are, and obviously salary is your No. 1 expense. If you are not able to count on this revenue and you can’t afford to have NPs and PAs as part of the team, it is going to become an access issue for patients.”

Potential access and quality issues also resonated with the American Osteopathic Association.

“You really could see the elimination of the physician element from that practice environment and that would be to the detriment of patients,” David Pugach, AOA senior vice president of public policy, said in an interview. “Right now, you have the ability for incident billing, which requires the active participation of a physician in the management of patient care. If you end that practice, you are essentially removing the physician from the equation, and that really is an access issue; it’s a safety issue; and it’s a quality issue.”

He also noted that sometimes there is overutilization of diagnostic services with APRNs and PAs, and while costs may be saved by paying for those clinicians at less than the rate of physicians, the overutilization of other services by them could end up offsetting the savings.

“We have some significant concerns,” Mr. Pugach said.

The American Academy of Physician Assistants echoed some concerns expressed by MedPAC commissioners and staff.

“What we feel strongly about is the fact that one of the problems of ‘incident to’ is that it hides the practitioners, in this case the PA who actually renders the service,” Michael Powe, AAPA vice president of reimbursement and professional advocacy, said in an interview.

“We think that’s inappropriate for a number of reasons,” he continued. “Clearly from the issue of trying to figure who’s doing what, who saw the patient, what the quality of care happens to be, we think that PAs ought to be recognized ... and not hidden which happens under the ‘incident to’ methodology.”

He said that transparency helps determine where primary care needs are, whether they are being met, and it helps with determining network adequacy.

“So there are a number of good reasons why the accuracy and transparency should be there whether or not ‘incident to’ goes away.”

Jennifer Winter, committee chair for public education for the Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants, agreed.*

Eliminating “incident to” would grant greater visibility of PA practice “because right now, some of what we do is hidden by what the physician does” because it is billed under the physician and you can’t see what the PA is doing, especially if there is an adverse event, said Ms. Winter, who practices in Olympia, Wash. “It confounds trying to collect data on outcomes.”

She also noted that some physicians might not want to hire an NP or PA “because they can hire a physician and get 100%, but they are also going to have to pay that physician at a physician rate.”

Ms. Winter said that PAs and nurse practitioners should be getting 100% of the pay as they are doing essentially the same work that physicians would be doing.

MedPAC staffers also recommended that APRNs and PAs more clearly identify the specialty that they work in, something they do not currently have to do, to allow for more transparency and accurate data on the work that these types of clinicians are performing.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this story misspelled Ms. Winter's name.

Paul Conlin, MD. Thank you all for joining us to talk about the recently released VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care (CPG). We’ve gathered together a group of experts who were part of the CPG development committee. We’re going to talk about some topics that were highlighted in the CPG that might provide additional detail to those in primary-care practices and help them in their management of patients with diabetes.

A unique feature of the VA/DoD CPG is that it emphasizes shared decision making as an important tool that clinicians should employ in their patient encounters. Dr. Watts, health care providers may wonder how they can make time for an intervention involving shared decision making using the SHARE approach, (ie, seek, help, assess, reach, and evaluate). Can you give us some advice on this?

Sharon Watts, DNP. Shared decision making is really crucial to success in diabetes. It’s been around for a while. We are trying to make an emphasis on this. The SHARE approach is from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The AHRQ has a wealth of information on its website. What AHRQ emphasizes is making it brief but conversational when you’re using the SHARE approach with your patient. Most importantly, the patient needs to be in the center of this dialogue, expressing his or her values and preferences of what’s most important to the whole team. This is a team effort. It’s not just with a provider. That’s where providers get overwhelmed. You can ask your nurse to advise the patient to write down 1 or 2 questions that are really important about diabetes before they come to see you, before the encounter. We can refer patients to diabetes classes where a lot of this information is given. The patient can talk to the dietitian or the pharmacist. There’s a whole team out there that will help in SHARE decision making. It’s crucial in the end for the provider to help the patient reach the decision and determine how best to treat the diabetes with them.

Dr. Conlin. Can you give a brief description of the key components of the SHARE approach?

Dr. Watts. Breaking it down simply, providers can start off by asking permission to go over the condition or treatment options because this immediately sets the stage as a signal to the patient that they are important in controlling the dialogue. It’s not the provider giving a discourse. You’re asking for permission. The next step would be to explore the benefits and risks of any course taken. Use decision aids if you have them. Keep in mind your patient’s current health literacy, numeracy, and other limitations.

Next ask about values, preferences, or barriers to whatever treatment you’re talking about. For instance, will this work with your work schedule?

Then the last thing would be ask what the patient wants to do next. Reach a decision on treatment, whatever it is, and make sure that you revisit that decision. Follow up later to see if it’s really working.

Dr. Conlin. If I’m a busy clinician and I have a limited amount of time with a patient, when are the appropriate times to employ the SHARE approach? Can I break it into components, where I address some elements during one visit and other elements in another visit?

Dr. Watts. Absolutely. It can be spread out. Your team is probably already providing information that will help in the SHARE approach. Just chart that you’ve done it. We know the SHARE approach is important because people tend to be adherent if they came up with part of the plan.

Dr. Conlin. Where does diabetes self-management education and diabetes self-management support fall into this framework?

Dr. Watts. Diabetes is a complex disease for providers and for the team and even more so for our patients. Invite them to diabetes classes. There’s so much to understand. The classes go over medications and blood sugar ranges, though you still may have to review it with the patient in your office. It saves the provider time if you have an informed and activated patient. It’s the same with sending a patient to a dietitian. I do all of the above.

Dr. Conlin. Many providers may not be familiar with this type of approach. How can I tell whether or not I’m doing it correctly?

Dr. Watts. The AHRQ website has conversation starters (www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/shareddecisionmaking/tools/index.html). Then make sure when you are with the patient to use Teach-Back. Have that conversation and say, “I want to make sure I understood correctly what we decided would work best for you.” Ask patients to say in their own words what they understand. Then I think you’re off to a great start.

Dr. Conlin. Many patients tend to be deferential to their health care providers. They were brought up in an era where they needed to listen to and respect clinicians rather than participate in discussions about their ongoing care. How do you engage with these patients?

Dr. Watts. That is a tough one. Before the patient leaves the office, I ask them: Are there any barriers? Does this work for your schedule? Is this a preference and value that you have? Is there anything that might get in the way of this working when you go home? I try to pull out a little bit more, making sure to give them some decision aids and revisit it at the next visit to make sure it’s working.

Dr. Conlin. We’ll now turn to a discussion of using hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) measurements in clinical practice. Dr. Aron, what factors can impact the relationship between HbA_1c and blood glucose? How should we use HbA_1c in the treatment of patients who come from varied ethnic and racial backgrounds, where the relationship to average blood glucose may be different?

David C. Aron, MD, MS. The identification of HbA_1c has been a tremendous advance in our ability to manage patients with diabetes. It represents an average blood glucose over the preceding 3 months but like everything in this world, it has issues. One is the fact that there is a certain degree of inaccuracy in measurement, and that’s true of any measurement that you make of anything. Just as you allow a little bit of wiggle room when you’re driving down the New Jersey Turnpike and watching your speedometer, which is not 100% accurate. It says you are going 65 but it could, for example be 68 or 62. You don’t want to go too fast or you’ll get a speeding ticket. You don’t want to go too slowly or the person behind you will start honking at you. You want to be at the speed limit plus or minus. The first thing to think about in using HbA_1c is the issue of accuracy. Rather than choose a specific target number, health care providers should choose a range between this and that. There’ll be more detail on that later.

The second thing is that part of the degree to which HbA_1c represents the average blood glucose depends on a lot of factors, and some of these factors are things that we can do absolutely nothing about because we are born with them. African Americans tend to have higher HbA_1c levels than do whites for the same glucose. That difference is as much as 0.4. An HbA_1c of 6.2 in African Americans gets you a 5.8 in whites for the same average blood glucose. Similarly, Native Americans have somewhat higher HbA_1c, although not quite as high as African Americans. Hispanics and Asians do as well, so you have to take your patient’s ethnicity into account.

The second has to do with the way that HbA_1c is measured and the fact that there are many things that can affect the measurement. An HbA_1c is dependent upon the lifespan of the red blood cell, so if there are alterations in red cell lifespan or if someone has anemia, that can affect HbA_1c. Certain hemoglobin variants, for example, hemoglobin F, which is typically elevated in someone with thalassemia, migrates with some assays in the same place as thalassemia, so the assay can’t tell the difference between thalassemia and hemoglobin F. There are drugs and other conditions that can also affect HbA_1c. You should think about HbA_1c as a guide, but no number should be considered to be written in stone.

Dr. Conlin. I can imagine that this would be particularly important if you were using HbA_1c as a criterion for diagnosing diabetes.

Dr. Aron. Quite right. The effects of race and ethnicity on HbA_1c account for one of the differences between the VA/DoD guidelines and those of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Dr. Conlin. Isn’t < 8% HbA_1c a national performance measure that people are asked to adhere to?

Dr. Aron. Not in the VA. In fact, the only performance measure that the VA has with a target is percent of patients with HbA_1c > 9%, and we don’t want any of those or very few of them anyway. We have specifically avoided targets like < 8% HbA_1c or < 7% HbA_1c, which was prevalent some years ago, because the choice of HbA_1c is very dependent upon the needs and desires of the individual patient. The VA has had stratified targets based on life expectancy and complications going back more than 15 years.

Dr. Conlin. Another issue that can confuse clinicians is when the HbA_1c is in the target range but actually reflects an average of glucose levels that are at times very high and very low. How do we address this problem clinically?

Dr. Aron. In managing patients, you use whatever data you can get. The HbA_1c gives you a general indication of average blood glucose, but particularly for those patients who are on insulin, it’s not a complete substitute for measuring blood glucose at appropriate times and taking the degree of glucose variability into account. We don’t want patients getting hypoglycemic, and particularly if they’re elderly, falling, or getting into a car accident. Similarly, we don’t want people to have very high blood sugars, even for limited periods of time, because they can lead to dehydration and other symptoms as well. We use a combination of both HbA_1c and individual measures of blood glucose, like finger-stick blood sugar testing, typically.

Dr. Conlin. The VA/DoD CPG differs from other published guidelines in that we proposed patients are treated to HbA_1c target ranges, whereas most other guidelines propose upper limits or threshold values, such as the HbA_1c should be < 7% or < 8% but without lower bounds. Dr. Colburn, what are the target ranges that are recommended in the CPG? How were they determined?

Maj. Jeffrey A. Colburn, MD. It may be helpful to pull up the Determination of Average Target HbA_1c Level Over Time table (page S17), which lays out risk for patients of treatment as well as the benefits of treatment. We first look at the patient’s state of health and whether they have a major comorbidity, a physiologic age that could be high risk, or advanced physiologic age with a diminished life expectancy. In controlling the levels of glucose, we’re often trying to benefit the microvascular health of the patient, realizing also that eventually poor management over time will lead to macrovascular disease as well. The main things that we see in child data is that the benefits of tight glucose control for younger patients with shorter duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is the prevention of retinopathy, nephropathy, and peripheral neuropathy. Those patients that already have advanced microvascular disease are less likely to benefit from tight control. Trying to push glucose very low can harm the patient. It’s a delicate balance between the possible benefit vs the real harm.

The major trials are the ADVANCE, ACCORD, and the VADT trial, which was done in a VA population. To generalize the results, you are looking at an intensive control, which was trying to keep the HbA_1c in general down below the 7% threshold. The patients enrolled in those trials all had microvascular and macrovascular disease and typically longer durations of diabetes at the time of the study. The studies revealed that we were not preventing macrovascular disease, heart attacks, strokes, the types of things that kill patients with diabetes. Individuals at higher HbA_1c levels that went down to better HbA_1c levels saw some improvement in the microvascular risk. Individuals already at the lower end didn’t see as much improvement. What we saw though that was surprising and concerning was that hypoglycemia, particularly severe hypoglycemia in the VADT trial was a lot more frequent when you try and target the HbA_1c on the lower end. Because of these findings, we proposed the table with a set of ranges. As Dr. Aron noted, HbA_1c is not a perfect test. It does have some variance in the number it presents. The CPG proposed to give individuals target ranges. They should be individualized based upon physiologic age, comorbidities, and life expectancy.

A criticism of the table that I commonly hear is what’s the magic crystal ball for determining somebody’s life expectancy? We don’t have one. This is a clinician’s judgment. The findings might actually change over time with the patient. A target HbA_1c range is something that should be adapted and evolve along with the clinician and patient experience of the diabetes.

There are other important studies. For example, the UKPDS trials that included patients with shorter durations of diabetes and lesser disease to try and get their HbA_1c levels on the lower end. We included that in the chart. Another concept we put forward is the idea of relative risk (RR) vs absolute risk. The RR reduction doesn’t speak to what the actual beginning risk is lowered to for a patient. The UKPDS is often cited for RR reduction of microvascular disease as 37% when an HbA_1c of 7.9% is targeted down to 7.0%. The absolute risk reduction is actually 5 with the number needed to treat to do so is 20 patients. When we present the data, we give it a fair shake. We want individuals to guide therapy that is going to be both beneficial to preventing outcomes but also not harmful to the patient. I would highly recommend clinicians and patients look at this table together when making their decisions.

Dr. Conlin. In the VA/DoD CPG, the HbA_1c target range for individuals with limited life expectancy extends to 9%. That may seem high for some, since most other guidelines propose lower HbA_1c levels. How strong are the data that a person with limited life expectancy, say with end-stage renal disease or advanced complications, could be treated to a range of 8% to 9%? Shouldn’t lower levels actually improve life expectancy in such people?

Dr. Colburn. There’s much less data to support this level, which is why it’s cited in CPG as having weaker evidence. The reason it’s proposed is the experience of the workgroup and the evidence that is available of a high risk for patients with low life expectancy when they reduce their HbA_1c greatly. One of the concerns about being at that level might be the real issue of renal glycosuria for individuals when their blood glucose is reaching above 180 mg/dL, which correlates to the 8% to 9% HbA_1c range. You may have renal loss and risk of dehydration. It is an area where the clinician should be cautious in monitoring a patient in the 8% to 9% HbA_1c range. With that being said, a patient who is having a lot of challenges in their health and extremely advanced conditions could be in that range. We would not expect a reversing of a micro- or macrovascular disease with glycemia control. We’re not going to go back from that level of disease they have. The idea about keeping them there is to prevent the risks of overtreatment and harm to the patient.

Dr. Conlin. Since patients with diabetes can progress over their lifetime from no complications to mild-to-moderate complications to advanced complications, how does the HbA_1c target range evolve as a patient’s condition changes?

Dr. Colburn. As we check for evidence of microvascular disease or neuropathy signs, that evidence often is good for discussion between the clinician and patient to advise them that better control early on may help stem off or reverse some of that change. As those changes solidify, the patient is challenged by microvascular conditions. I would entertain allowing more relaxed HbA_1c ranges to prevent harm to the patient given that we’re not going back. But you have to be careful. We have to consider benefits to the patient and the challenges for controlling glucose.

I hope that this table doesn’t make providers throw up their hands and give up. It’s meant to start a conversation on safety and benefits. With newer agents coming out that can help us control glucose quite well, without as much hypoglycemia risk, clinicians and patients potentially can try and get that HbA_1c into a well-managed range.

Dr. Conlin. The CPG discusses various treatment options that might be available for patients who require pharmacologic therapy. The number of agents available is growing quite markedly. Dr. Colburn, can you describe how the CPG put together the pharmacologic therapy preferences.

Dr. Colburn. The CPG expressively stayed away from trying to promote specific regimens of medications. For example, other guidelines promote starting with certain agents followed by a second-line agent by a third-line agents. The concern that we had about that approach is that the medication landscape is rapidly evolving. The options available to clinicians and patients are really diverse at this moment, and the data are not concrete regarding what works best for a single patient.

Rather than trying to go from one agent to the next, we thought it best to discuss with patients using the SHARE decision-making model, the adverse effects (AEs) and relative benefits that are involved with each medication class to determine what might be best for the person. We have many new agents with evidence for possible reductions in cardiovascular outcomes outside of their glycemic control properties. As those evidences promote a potentially better option for a patient, we wanted to allow the room in management to make a decision together. I will say the CPG as well as all of the other applicable diabetes guidelines for T2DM promote metformin as the first therapy to consider for somebody with newly diagnosed T2DM because of safety and availability and the benefit that’s seen with that medication class. We ask clinicians to access the AHRQ website for updates as the medicines evolve.

In a rapidly changing landscape with new drugs coming into the market, each agency has on their individual website information about individual agents and their formulary status, criteria for use, and prior authorization requirements. We refer clinicians to the appropriate website for more information.
 

Dr. Conlin. There are a series of new medications that have recently come to market that seem to mitigate risk for hypoglycemia. Dr. Lugo, which treatment options carry greater risk? Which treatment options seem to have lesser risk for hypoglycemia?

Amy M. Lugo, PharmD. Insulin and the sulfonylureas have the highest risk of hypoglycemia. The sulfonylureas have fallen out of favor somewhat. One reason is that there are many newer agents that do not cause weight gain or increase the risk of hypoglycemia. Some of the newer insulins may have a lower risk of hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia, in particular; however, it is difficult to conclude emphatically that one basal insulin analog is less likely to cause clinically relevant severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia events. This is due to the differences in the definitions of hypoglycemia used in the individual clinical trials, the open label study designs, and the different primary endpoints.

Dr. Conlin. How much affect on HbA_1c might I expect to see using SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists? What would be some of the potential AEs I have to be aware of and therefore could counsel patients about?

Dr. Lugo. Let’s start with SGLT2 inhibitors. It depends on whether they are used as monotherapy or in combination. We prefer that patients start on metformin unless they have a contraindication. When used as monotherapy, the SGLT2s may decrease HbA_1c from 0.4% to 1% from baseline. When combined with additional agents, they can have > 1% improvement in HbA_1c from baseline. There are no head-to-head trials between any of the SGLT2 inhibitors. We cannot say that one is more efficacious than another in lowering HbA_1c. The most common AEs include genital mycotic infections and urinary tract infections. The SGLT2 inhibitors also should be avoided in renal impairment. There was a recent FDA safety alert for the class for risk of ketoacidosis. Additionally, the FDA warned that patients with a history of bladder cancer should avoid dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin has a warning for increased risk of bone fractures, amputation, and decreased bone density.

Other actions of the SGLT2 inhibitors include a reduction in triglycerides and a modest increase in both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The SGLT2 inhibitors also slightly decrease systolic blood pressure (by 4 mm Hg to 6 mm Hg) and body weight (reduction of 1.8 kg)

The GLP-1s are likely to be more efficacious in reducing HbA_1c. Typically we see 1% or greater lowering in HbA_1c from baseline. As a class, the GLP-1 agonists have a lower risk of hypoglycemia; however, the risk increases when combined with sulfonylureas or insulin. The dose of insulin or sulfonylurea will likely need to be decreased when used concomitantly.

Patients are likely to experience weight loss when on a GLP-1 agonist, which is a great benefit. Gastrointestinal AEs such as nausea are common. Adverse effects may differ somewhat between the agents.

Dr. Conlin. Patients’ experience of care is integral to their engagement with treatment as well as their adherence. Ms. Decesare, what are patients looking for from their health care team?

Elaine M. Decesare. Patients are looking for a knowledgeable and compassionate health care team that has a consistent approach and a consistent message and that the team is updated on the knowledge of appropriate treatments and appropriate lifestyle modifications and targets for the care of diabetes.

Also, I think that the team needs to have some empathy for the challenges of living with diabetes. It’s a 24-hour-a-day disorder, 7 days a week. They can’t take vacation from it. They just can’t take a pill and forget about it. It’s a fairly demanding disorder, and sometimes just acknowledging that with the patient can help you with the dialog.

The second thing I think patients want is an effective treatment plan that’s tailored to their needs and lifestyles. That goes in with the shared decision-making approach, but the plan itself really has to be likely to achieve the targets and the goals that you’ve set up. Sometimes I see patients who are doing all they can with their lifestyle changes, but they can’t get to goal, because there isn’t enough medication in the plan. The plan has to be adequate so that the patient can manage their diabetes. In the shared approach, the patient has to buy in to the plan. With the shared decision making they’re more likely to take the plan on as their plan.

Dr. Conlin. How do you respond to patients who feel treatment burnout from having a new dietary plan, an exercise program, regular monitoring of glucose through finger sticks, and in many cases multiple medications and or injections, while potentially not achieving the goals that you and the patient have arrived at?

Ms. Decesare. First, I want to assess their mood. Sometimes patients are depressed, and they actually need help with that. If they have trouble with just the management, we do have behavioral health psychologists on our team that work with patients to get through some of the barriers and discuss some of the feelings that they have about diabetes and diabetes management.

Sometimes we look at the plan again and see if there’s something we can do to make the plan easier. Occasionally, something has happened in their life. Maybe they’re taking care of an elderly parent or they’ve had other health problems that have come about that we need to reassess the plan and make sure that it’s actually doable for them at this point in time.

Certainly diabetes self-management education can be helpful. Some of those approaches can be helpful for finding something that’s going to work for patients in the long run, because it can be a very difficult disorder to manage as time goes on.

Dr. Colburn. Type 2 DM disproportionately affects individuals who are ≥ 65 years compared with younger individuals. Such older patients also are more likely to have cognitive impairment or visual issues. How do we best manage such patients?

Ms. Decesare. When I’m looking at the care plan, social support is very important. If someone has social support and they have a spouse or a son or daughter or someone else that can help them with their diabetes, we oftentimes will get them involved with the plan, as long as it’s fine with the patient, to offer some help, especially with the patients with cognitive problems, because sometimes the patients just cognitively cannot manage diabetes on their own. Prandial insulin could be a really dangerous product for someone who has cognitive disease.

I think you have to look at all the resources that are available. Sometimes you have to change your HbA_1c target range to something that’s going to be manageable for that patient at that time. It might not be perfect, but it would be better to have no hypoglycemia rather than a real aggressive HbA_1c target or a target range, if that’s what’s going to keep the patient safe.

Dr. Conlin. We thank our discussants for sharing very practical advice on how to implement the CPG. We hope this information supports clinicians as they develop treatment plans based on each patient's unique characteristics and goals of care.

Paul Conlin, MD. Thank you all for joining us to talk about the recently released VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care (CPG). We’ve gathered together a group of experts who were part of the CPG development committee. We’re going to talk about some topics that were highlighted in the CPG that might provide additional detail to those in primary-care practices and help them in their management of patients with diabetes.

A unique feature of the VA/DoD CPG is that it emphasizes shared decision making as an important tool that clinicians should employ in their patient encounters. Dr. Watts, health care providers may wonder how they can make time for an intervention involving shared decision making using the SHARE approach, (ie, seek, help, assess, reach, and evaluate). Can you give us some advice on this?

Sharon Watts, DNP. Shared decision making is really crucial to success in diabetes. It’s been around for a while. We are trying to make an emphasis on this. The SHARE approach is from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The AHRQ has a wealth of information on its website. What AHRQ emphasizes is making it brief but conversational when you’re using the SHARE approach with your patient. Most importantly, the patient needs to be in the center of this dialogue, expressing his or her values and preferences of what’s most important to the whole team. This is a team effort. It’s not just with a provider. That’s where providers get overwhelmed. You can ask your nurse to advise the patient to write down 1 or 2 questions that are really important about diabetes before they come to see you, before the encounter. We can refer patients to diabetes classes where a lot of this information is given. The patient can talk to the dietitian or the pharmacist. There’s a whole team out there that will help in SHARE decision making. It’s crucial in the end for the provider to help the patient reach the decision and determine how best to treat the diabetes with them.

Dr. Conlin. Can you give a brief description of the key components of the SHARE approach?

Dr. Watts. Breaking it down simply, providers can start off by asking permission to go over the condition or treatment options because this immediately sets the stage as a signal to the patient that they are important in controlling the dialogue. It’s not the provider giving a discourse. You’re asking for permission. The next step would be to explore the benefits and risks of any course taken. Use decision aids if you have them. Keep in mind your patient’s current health literacy, numeracy, and other limitations.

Next ask about values, preferences, or barriers to whatever treatment you’re talking about. For instance, will this work with your work schedule?

Then the last thing would be ask what the patient wants to do next. Reach a decision on treatment, whatever it is, and make sure that you revisit that decision. Follow up later to see if it’s really working.

Dr. Conlin. If I’m a busy clinician and I have a limited amount of time with a patient, when are the appropriate times to employ the SHARE approach? Can I break it into components, where I address some elements during one visit and other elements in another visit?

Dr. Watts. Absolutely. It can be spread out. Your team is probably already providing information that will help in the SHARE approach. Just chart that you’ve done it. We know the SHARE approach is important because people tend to be adherent if they came up with part of the plan.

Dr. Conlin. Where does diabetes self-management education and diabetes self-management support fall into this framework?

Dr. Watts. Diabetes is a complex disease for providers and for the team and even more so for our patients. Invite them to diabetes classes. There’s so much to understand. The classes go over medications and blood sugar ranges, though you still may have to review it with the patient in your office. It saves the provider time if you have an informed and activated patient. It’s the same with sending a patient to a dietitian. I do all of the above.

Dr. Conlin. Many providers may not be familiar with this type of approach. How can I tell whether or not I’m doing it correctly?

Dr. Watts. The AHRQ website has conversation starters (www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/shareddecisionmaking/tools/index.html). Then make sure when you are with the patient to use Teach-Back. Have that conversation and say, “I want to make sure I understood correctly what we decided would work best for you.” Ask patients to say in their own words what they understand. Then I think you’re off to a great start.

Dr. Conlin. Many patients tend to be deferential to their health care providers. They were brought up in an era where they needed to listen to and respect clinicians rather than participate in discussions about their ongoing care. How do you engage with these patients?

Dr. Watts. That is a tough one. Before the patient leaves the office, I ask them: Are there any barriers? Does this work for your schedule? Is this a preference and value that you have? Is there anything that might get in the way of this working when you go home? I try to pull out a little bit more, making sure to give them some decision aids and revisit it at the next visit to make sure it’s working.

Dr. Conlin. We’ll now turn to a discussion of using hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) measurements in clinical practice. Dr. Aron, what factors can impact the relationship between HbA_1c and blood glucose? How should we use HbA_1c in the treatment of patients who come from varied ethnic and racial backgrounds, where the relationship to average blood glucose may be different?

David C. Aron, MD, MS. The identification of HbA_1c has been a tremendous advance in our ability to manage patients with diabetes. It represents an average blood glucose over the preceding 3 months but like everything in this world, it has issues. One is the fact that there is a certain degree of inaccuracy in measurement, and that’s true of any measurement that you make of anything. Just as you allow a little bit of wiggle room when you’re driving down the New Jersey Turnpike and watching your speedometer, which is not 100% accurate. It says you are going 65 but it could, for example be 68 or 62. You don’t want to go too fast or you’ll get a speeding ticket. You don’t want to go too slowly or the person behind you will start honking at you. You want to be at the speed limit plus or minus. The first thing to think about in using HbA_1c is the issue of accuracy. Rather than choose a specific target number, health care providers should choose a range between this and that. There’ll be more detail on that later.

The second thing is that part of the degree to which HbA_1c represents the average blood glucose depends on a lot of factors, and some of these factors are things that we can do absolutely nothing about because we are born with them. African Americans tend to have higher HbA_1c levels than do whites for the same glucose. That difference is as much as 0.4. An HbA_1c of 6.2 in African Americans gets you a 5.8 in whites for the same average blood glucose. Similarly, Native Americans have somewhat higher HbA_1c, although not quite as high as African Americans. Hispanics and Asians do as well, so you have to take your patient’s ethnicity into account.

The second has to do with the way that HbA_1c is measured and the fact that there are many things that can affect the measurement. An HbA_1c is dependent upon the lifespan of the red blood cell, so if there are alterations in red cell lifespan or if someone has anemia, that can affect HbA_1c. Certain hemoglobin variants, for example, hemoglobin F, which is typically elevated in someone with thalassemia, migrates with some assays in the same place as thalassemia, so the assay can’t tell the difference between thalassemia and hemoglobin F. There are drugs and other conditions that can also affect HbA_1c. You should think about HbA_1c as a guide, but no number should be considered to be written in stone.

Dr. Conlin. I can imagine that this would be particularly important if you were using HbA_1c as a criterion for diagnosing diabetes.

Dr. Aron. Quite right. The effects of race and ethnicity on HbA_1c account for one of the differences between the VA/DoD guidelines and those of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Dr. Conlin. Isn’t < 8% HbA_1c a national performance measure that people are asked to adhere to?

Dr. Aron. Not in the VA. In fact, the only performance measure that the VA has with a target is percent of patients with HbA_1c > 9%, and we don’t want any of those or very few of them anyway. We have specifically avoided targets like < 8% HbA_1c or < 7% HbA_1c, which was prevalent some years ago, because the choice of HbA_1c is very dependent upon the needs and desires of the individual patient. The VA has had stratified targets based on life expectancy and complications going back more than 15 years.

Dr. Conlin. Another issue that can confuse clinicians is when the HbA_1c is in the target range but actually reflects an average of glucose levels that are at times very high and very low. How do we address this problem clinically?

Dr. Aron. In managing patients, you use whatever data you can get. The HbA_1c gives you a general indication of average blood glucose, but particularly for those patients who are on insulin, it’s not a complete substitute for measuring blood glucose at appropriate times and taking the degree of glucose variability into account. We don’t want patients getting hypoglycemic, and particularly if they’re elderly, falling, or getting into a car accident. Similarly, we don’t want people to have very high blood sugars, even for limited periods of time, because they can lead to dehydration and other symptoms as well. We use a combination of both HbA_1c and individual measures of blood glucose, like finger-stick blood sugar testing, typically.

Dr. Conlin. The VA/DoD CPG differs from other published guidelines in that we proposed patients are treated to HbA_1c target ranges, whereas most other guidelines propose upper limits or threshold values, such as the HbA_1c should be < 7% or < 8% but without lower bounds. Dr. Colburn, what are the target ranges that are recommended in the CPG? How were they determined?

Maj. Jeffrey A. Colburn, MD. It may be helpful to pull up the Determination of Average Target HbA_1c Level Over Time table (page S17), which lays out risk for patients of treatment as well as the benefits of treatment. We first look at the patient’s state of health and whether they have a major comorbidity, a physiologic age that could be high risk, or advanced physiologic age with a diminished life expectancy. In controlling the levels of glucose, we’re often trying to benefit the microvascular health of the patient, realizing also that eventually poor management over time will lead to macrovascular disease as well. The main things that we see in child data is that the benefits of tight glucose control for younger patients with shorter duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is the prevention of retinopathy, nephropathy, and peripheral neuropathy. Those patients that already have advanced microvascular disease are less likely to benefit from tight control. Trying to push glucose very low can harm the patient. It’s a delicate balance between the possible benefit vs the real harm.

The major trials are the ADVANCE, ACCORD, and the VADT trial, which was done in a VA population. To generalize the results, you are looking at an intensive control, which was trying to keep the HbA_1c in general down below the 7% threshold. The patients enrolled in those trials all had microvascular and macrovascular disease and typically longer durations of diabetes at the time of the study. The studies revealed that we were not preventing macrovascular disease, heart attacks, strokes, the types of things that kill patients with diabetes. Individuals at higher HbA_1c levels that went down to better HbA_1c levels saw some improvement in the microvascular risk. Individuals already at the lower end didn’t see as much improvement. What we saw though that was surprising and concerning was that hypoglycemia, particularly severe hypoglycemia in the VADT trial was a lot more frequent when you try and target the HbA_1c on the lower end. Because of these findings, we proposed the table with a set of ranges. As Dr. Aron noted, HbA_1c is not a perfect test. It does have some variance in the number it presents. The CPG proposed to give individuals target ranges. They should be individualized based upon physiologic age, comorbidities, and life expectancy.

A criticism of the table that I commonly hear is what’s the magic crystal ball for determining somebody’s life expectancy? We don’t have one. This is a clinician’s judgment. The findings might actually change over time with the patient. A target HbA_1c range is something that should be adapted and evolve along with the clinician and patient experience of the diabetes.

There are other important studies. For example, the UKPDS trials that included patients with shorter durations of diabetes and lesser disease to try and get their HbA_1c levels on the lower end. We included that in the chart. Another concept we put forward is the idea of relative risk (RR) vs absolute risk. The RR reduction doesn’t speak to what the actual beginning risk is lowered to for a patient. The UKPDS is often cited for RR reduction of microvascular disease as 37% when an HbA_1c of 7.9% is targeted down to 7.0%. The absolute risk reduction is actually 5 with the number needed to treat to do so is 20 patients. When we present the data, we give it a fair shake. We want individuals to guide therapy that is going to be both beneficial to preventing outcomes but also not harmful to the patient. I would highly recommend clinicians and patients look at this table together when making their decisions.

Dr. Conlin. In the VA/DoD CPG, the HbA_1c target range for individuals with limited life expectancy extends to 9%. That may seem high for some, since most other guidelines propose lower HbA_1c levels. How strong are the data that a person with limited life expectancy, say with end-stage renal disease or advanced complications, could be treated to a range of 8% to 9%? Shouldn’t lower levels actually improve life expectancy in such people?

Dr. Colburn. There’s much less data to support this level, which is why it’s cited in CPG as having weaker evidence. The reason it’s proposed is the experience of the workgroup and the evidence that is available of a high risk for patients with low life expectancy when they reduce their HbA_1c greatly. One of the concerns about being at that level might be the real issue of renal glycosuria for individuals when their blood glucose is reaching above 180 mg/dL, which correlates to the 8% to 9% HbA_1c range. You may have renal loss and risk of dehydration. It is an area where the clinician should be cautious in monitoring a patient in the 8% to 9% HbA_1c range. With that being said, a patient who is having a lot of challenges in their health and extremely advanced conditions could be in that range. We would not expect a reversing of a micro- or macrovascular disease with glycemia control. We’re not going to go back from that level of disease they have. The idea about keeping them there is to prevent the risks of overtreatment and harm to the patient.

Dr. Conlin. Since patients with diabetes can progress over their lifetime from no complications to mild-to-moderate complications to advanced complications, how does the HbA_1c target range evolve as a patient’s condition changes?

Dr. Colburn. As we check for evidence of microvascular disease or neuropathy signs, that evidence often is good for discussion between the clinician and patient to advise them that better control early on may help stem off or reverse some of that change. As those changes solidify, the patient is challenged by microvascular conditions. I would entertain allowing more relaxed HbA_1c ranges to prevent harm to the patient given that we’re not going back. But you have to be careful. We have to consider benefits to the patient and the challenges for controlling glucose.

I hope that this table doesn’t make providers throw up their hands and give up. It’s meant to start a conversation on safety and benefits. With newer agents coming out that can help us control glucose quite well, without as much hypoglycemia risk, clinicians and patients potentially can try and get that HbA_1c into a well-managed range.

Dr. Conlin. The CPG discusses various treatment options that might be available for patients who require pharmacologic therapy. The number of agents available is growing quite markedly. Dr. Colburn, can you describe how the CPG put together the pharmacologic therapy preferences.

Dr. Colburn. The CPG expressively stayed away from trying to promote specific regimens of medications. For example, other guidelines promote starting with certain agents followed by a second-line agent by a third-line agents. The concern that we had about that approach is that the medication landscape is rapidly evolving. The options available to clinicians and patients are really diverse at this moment, and the data are not concrete regarding what works best for a single patient.

Rather than trying to go from one agent to the next, we thought it best to discuss with patients using the SHARE decision-making model, the adverse effects (AEs) and relative benefits that are involved with each medication class to determine what might be best for the person. We have many new agents with evidence for possible reductions in cardiovascular outcomes outside of their glycemic control properties. As those evidences promote a potentially better option for a patient, we wanted to allow the room in management to make a decision together. I will say the CPG as well as all of the other applicable diabetes guidelines for T2DM promote metformin as the first therapy to consider for somebody with newly diagnosed T2DM because of safety and availability and the benefit that’s seen with that medication class. We ask clinicians to access the AHRQ website for updates as the medicines evolve.

In a rapidly changing landscape with new drugs coming into the market, each agency has on their individual website information about individual agents and their formulary status, criteria for use, and prior authorization requirements. We refer clinicians to the appropriate website for more information.
 

Dr. Conlin. There are a series of new medications that have recently come to market that seem to mitigate risk for hypoglycemia. Dr. Lugo, which treatment options carry greater risk? Which treatment options seem to have lesser risk for hypoglycemia?

Amy M. Lugo, PharmD. Insulin and the sulfonylureas have the highest risk of hypoglycemia. The sulfonylureas have fallen out of favor somewhat. One reason is that there are many newer agents that do not cause weight gain or increase the risk of hypoglycemia. Some of the newer insulins may have a lower risk of hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia, in particular; however, it is difficult to conclude emphatically that one basal insulin analog is less likely to cause clinically relevant severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia events. This is due to the differences in the definitions of hypoglycemia used in the individual clinical trials, the open label study designs, and the different primary endpoints.

Dr. Conlin. How much affect on HbA_1c might I expect to see using SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists? What would be some of the potential AEs I have to be aware of and therefore could counsel patients about?

Dr. Lugo. Let’s start with SGLT2 inhibitors. It depends on whether they are used as monotherapy or in combination. We prefer that patients start on metformin unless they have a contraindication. When used as monotherapy, the SGLT2s may decrease HbA_1c from 0.4% to 1% from baseline. When combined with additional agents, they can have > 1% improvement in HbA_1c from baseline. There are no head-to-head trials between any of the SGLT2 inhibitors. We cannot say that one is more efficacious than another in lowering HbA_1c. The most common AEs include genital mycotic infections and urinary tract infections. The SGLT2 inhibitors also should be avoided in renal impairment. There was a recent FDA safety alert for the class for risk of ketoacidosis. Additionally, the FDA warned that patients with a history of bladder cancer should avoid dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin has a warning for increased risk of bone fractures, amputation, and decreased bone density.

Other actions of the SGLT2 inhibitors include a reduction in triglycerides and a modest increase in both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The SGLT2 inhibitors also slightly decrease systolic blood pressure (by 4 mm Hg to 6 mm Hg) and body weight (reduction of 1.8 kg)

The GLP-1s are likely to be more efficacious in reducing HbA_1c. Typically we see 1% or greater lowering in HbA_1c from baseline. As a class, the GLP-1 agonists have a lower risk of hypoglycemia; however, the risk increases when combined with sulfonylureas or insulin. The dose of insulin or sulfonylurea will likely need to be decreased when used concomitantly.

Patients are likely to experience weight loss when on a GLP-1 agonist, which is a great benefit. Gastrointestinal AEs such as nausea are common. Adverse effects may differ somewhat between the agents.

Dr. Conlin. Patients’ experience of care is integral to their engagement with treatment as well as their adherence. Ms. Decesare, what are patients looking for from their health care team?

Elaine M. Decesare. Patients are looking for a knowledgeable and compassionate health care team that has a consistent approach and a consistent message and that the team is updated on the knowledge of appropriate treatments and appropriate lifestyle modifications and targets for the care of diabetes.

Also, I think that the team needs to have some empathy for the challenges of living with diabetes. It’s a 24-hour-a-day disorder, 7 days a week. They can’t take vacation from it. They just can’t take a pill and forget about it. It’s a fairly demanding disorder, and sometimes just acknowledging that with the patient can help you with the dialog.

The second thing I think patients want is an effective treatment plan that’s tailored to their needs and lifestyles. That goes in with the shared decision-making approach, but the plan itself really has to be likely to achieve the targets and the goals that you’ve set up. Sometimes I see patients who are doing all they can with their lifestyle changes, but they can’t get to goal, because there isn’t enough medication in the plan. The plan has to be adequate so that the patient can manage their diabetes. In the shared approach, the patient has to buy in to the plan. With the shared decision making they’re more likely to take the plan on as their plan.

Dr. Conlin. How do you respond to patients who feel treatment burnout from having a new dietary plan, an exercise program, regular monitoring of glucose through finger sticks, and in many cases multiple medications and or injections, while potentially not achieving the goals that you and the patient have arrived at?

Ms. Decesare. First, I want to assess their mood. Sometimes patients are depressed, and they actually need help with that. If they have trouble with just the management, we do have behavioral health psychologists on our team that work with patients to get through some of the barriers and discuss some of the feelings that they have about diabetes and diabetes management.

Sometimes we look at the plan again and see if there’s something we can do to make the plan easier. Occasionally, something has happened in their life. Maybe they’re taking care of an elderly parent or they’ve had other health problems that have come about that we need to reassess the plan and make sure that it’s actually doable for them at this point in time.

Certainly diabetes self-management education can be helpful. Some of those approaches can be helpful for finding something that’s going to work for patients in the long run, because it can be a very difficult disorder to manage as time goes on.

Dr. Colburn. Type 2 DM disproportionately affects individuals who are ≥ 65 years compared with younger individuals. Such older patients also are more likely to have cognitive impairment or visual issues. How do we best manage such patients?

Ms. Decesare. When I’m looking at the care plan, social support is very important. If someone has social support and they have a spouse or a son or daughter or someone else that can help them with their diabetes, we oftentimes will get them involved with the plan, as long as it’s fine with the patient, to offer some help, especially with the patients with cognitive problems, because sometimes the patients just cognitively cannot manage diabetes on their own. Prandial insulin could be a really dangerous product for someone who has cognitive disease.

I think you have to look at all the resources that are available. Sometimes you have to change your HbA_1c target range to something that’s going to be manageable for that patient at that time. It might not be perfect, but it would be better to have no hypoglycemia rather than a real aggressive HbA_1c target or a target range, if that’s what’s going to keep the patient safe.

Dr. Conlin. We thank our discussants for sharing very practical advice on how to implement the CPG. We hope this information supports clinicians as they develop treatment plans based on each patient's unique characteristics and goals of care.

Paul Conlin, MD. Thank you all for joining us to talk about the recently released VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care (CPG). We’ve gathered together a group of experts who were part of the CPG development committee. We’re going to talk about some topics that were highlighted in the CPG that might provide additional detail to those in primary-care practices and help them in their management of patients with diabetes.

A unique feature of the VA/DoD CPG is that it emphasizes shared decision making as an important tool that clinicians should employ in their patient encounters. Dr. Watts, health care providers may wonder how they can make time for an intervention involving shared decision making using the SHARE approach, (ie, seek, help, assess, reach, and evaluate). Can you give us some advice on this?

Sharon Watts, DNP. Shared decision making is really crucial to success in diabetes. It’s been around for a while. We are trying to make an emphasis on this. The SHARE approach is from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The AHRQ has a wealth of information on its website. What AHRQ emphasizes is making it brief but conversational when you’re using the SHARE approach with your patient. Most importantly, the patient needs to be in the center of this dialogue, expressing his or her values and preferences of what’s most important to the whole team. This is a team effort. It’s not just with a provider. That’s where providers get overwhelmed. You can ask your nurse to advise the patient to write down 1 or 2 questions that are really important about diabetes before they come to see you, before the encounter. We can refer patients to diabetes classes where a lot of this information is given. The patient can talk to the dietitian or the pharmacist. There’s a whole team out there that will help in SHARE decision making. It’s crucial in the end for the provider to help the patient reach the decision and determine how best to treat the diabetes with them.

Dr. Conlin. Can you give a brief description of the key components of the SHARE approach?

Dr. Watts. Breaking it down simply, providers can start off by asking permission to go over the condition or treatment options because this immediately sets the stage as a signal to the patient that they are important in controlling the dialogue. It’s not the provider giving a discourse. You’re asking for permission. The next step would be to explore the benefits and risks of any course taken. Use decision aids if you have them. Keep in mind your patient’s current health literacy, numeracy, and other limitations.

Next ask about values, preferences, or barriers to whatever treatment you’re talking about. For instance, will this work with your work schedule?

Then the last thing would be ask what the patient wants to do next. Reach a decision on treatment, whatever it is, and make sure that you revisit that decision. Follow up later to see if it’s really working.

Dr. Conlin. If I’m a busy clinician and I have a limited amount of time with a patient, when are the appropriate times to employ the SHARE approach? Can I break it into components, where I address some elements during one visit and other elements in another visit?

Dr. Watts. Absolutely. It can be spread out. Your team is probably already providing information that will help in the SHARE approach. Just chart that you’ve done it. We know the SHARE approach is important because people tend to be adherent if they came up with part of the plan.

Dr. Conlin. Where does diabetes self-management education and diabetes self-management support fall into this framework?

Dr. Watts. Diabetes is a complex disease for providers and for the team and even more so for our patients. Invite them to diabetes classes. There’s so much to understand. The classes go over medications and blood sugar ranges, though you still may have to review it with the patient in your office. It saves the provider time if you have an informed and activated patient. It’s the same with sending a patient to a dietitian. I do all of the above.

Dr. Conlin. Many providers may not be familiar with this type of approach. How can I tell whether or not I’m doing it correctly?

Dr. Watts. The AHRQ website has conversation starters (www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/shareddecisionmaking/tools/index.html). Then make sure when you are with the patient to use Teach-Back. Have that conversation and say, “I want to make sure I understood correctly what we decided would work best for you.” Ask patients to say in their own words what they understand. Then I think you’re off to a great start.

Dr. Conlin. Many patients tend to be deferential to their health care providers. They were brought up in an era where they needed to listen to and respect clinicians rather than participate in discussions about their ongoing care. How do you engage with these patients?

Dr. Watts. That is a tough one. Before the patient leaves the office, I ask them: Are there any barriers? Does this work for your schedule? Is this a preference and value that you have? Is there anything that might get in the way of this working when you go home? I try to pull out a little bit more, making sure to give them some decision aids and revisit it at the next visit to make sure it’s working.

Dr. Conlin. We’ll now turn to a discussion of using hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) measurements in clinical practice. Dr. Aron, what factors can impact the relationship between HbA_1c and blood glucose? How should we use HbA_1c in the treatment of patients who come from varied ethnic and racial backgrounds, where the relationship to average blood glucose may be different?

David C. Aron, MD, MS. The identification of HbA_1c has been a tremendous advance in our ability to manage patients with diabetes. It represents an average blood glucose over the preceding 3 months but like everything in this world, it has issues. One is the fact that there is a certain degree of inaccuracy in measurement, and that’s true of any measurement that you make of anything. Just as you allow a little bit of wiggle room when you’re driving down the New Jersey Turnpike and watching your speedometer, which is not 100% accurate. It says you are going 65 but it could, for example be 68 or 62. You don’t want to go too fast or you’ll get a speeding ticket. You don’t want to go too slowly or the person behind you will start honking at you. You want to be at the speed limit plus or minus. The first thing to think about in using HbA_1c is the issue of accuracy. Rather than choose a specific target number, health care providers should choose a range between this and that. There’ll be more detail on that later.

The second thing is that part of the degree to which HbA_1c represents the average blood glucose depends on a lot of factors, and some of these factors are things that we can do absolutely nothing about because we are born with them. African Americans tend to have higher HbA_1c levels than do whites for the same glucose. That difference is as much as 0.4. An HbA_1c of 6.2 in African Americans gets you a 5.8 in whites for the same average blood glucose. Similarly, Native Americans have somewhat higher HbA_1c, although not quite as high as African Americans. Hispanics and Asians do as well, so you have to take your patient’s ethnicity into account.

The second has to do with the way that HbA_1c is measured and the fact that there are many things that can affect the measurement. An HbA_1c is dependent upon the lifespan of the red blood cell, so if there are alterations in red cell lifespan or if someone has anemia, that can affect HbA_1c. Certain hemoglobin variants, for example, hemoglobin F, which is typically elevated in someone with thalassemia, migrates with some assays in the same place as thalassemia, so the assay can’t tell the difference between thalassemia and hemoglobin F. There are drugs and other conditions that can also affect HbA_1c. You should think about HbA_1c as a guide, but no number should be considered to be written in stone.

Dr. Conlin. I can imagine that this would be particularly important if you were using HbA_1c as a criterion for diagnosing diabetes.

Dr. Aron. Quite right. The effects of race and ethnicity on HbA_1c account for one of the differences between the VA/DoD guidelines and those of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

Dr. Conlin. Isn’t < 8% HbA_1c a national performance measure that people are asked to adhere to?

Dr. Aron. Not in the VA. In fact, the only performance measure that the VA has with a target is percent of patients with HbA_1c > 9%, and we don’t want any of those or very few of them anyway. We have specifically avoided targets like < 8% HbA_1c or < 7% HbA_1c, which was prevalent some years ago, because the choice of HbA_1c is very dependent upon the needs and desires of the individual patient. The VA has had stratified targets based on life expectancy and complications going back more than 15 years.

Dr. Conlin. Another issue that can confuse clinicians is when the HbA_1c is in the target range but actually reflects an average of glucose levels that are at times very high and very low. How do we address this problem clinically?

Dr. Aron. In managing patients, you use whatever data you can get. The HbA_1c gives you a general indication of average blood glucose, but particularly for those patients who are on insulin, it’s not a complete substitute for measuring blood glucose at appropriate times and taking the degree of glucose variability into account. We don’t want patients getting hypoglycemic, and particularly if they’re elderly, falling, or getting into a car accident. Similarly, we don’t want people to have very high blood sugars, even for limited periods of time, because they can lead to dehydration and other symptoms as well. We use a combination of both HbA_1c and individual measures of blood glucose, like finger-stick blood sugar testing, typically.

Dr. Conlin. The VA/DoD CPG differs from other published guidelines in that we proposed patients are treated to HbA_1c target ranges, whereas most other guidelines propose upper limits or threshold values, such as the HbA_1c should be < 7% or < 8% but without lower bounds. Dr. Colburn, what are the target ranges that are recommended in the CPG? How were they determined?

Maj. Jeffrey A. Colburn, MD. It may be helpful to pull up the Determination of Average Target HbA_1c Level Over Time table (page S17), which lays out risk for patients of treatment as well as the benefits of treatment. We first look at the patient’s state of health and whether they have a major comorbidity, a physiologic age that could be high risk, or advanced physiologic age with a diminished life expectancy. In controlling the levels of glucose, we’re often trying to benefit the microvascular health of the patient, realizing also that eventually poor management over time will lead to macrovascular disease as well. The main things that we see in child data is that the benefits of tight glucose control for younger patients with shorter duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is the prevention of retinopathy, nephropathy, and peripheral neuropathy. Those patients that already have advanced microvascular disease are less likely to benefit from tight control. Trying to push glucose very low can harm the patient. It’s a delicate balance between the possible benefit vs the real harm.

The major trials are the ADVANCE, ACCORD, and the VADT trial, which was done in a VA population. To generalize the results, you are looking at an intensive control, which was trying to keep the HbA_1c in general down below the 7% threshold. The patients enrolled in those trials all had microvascular and macrovascular disease and typically longer durations of diabetes at the time of the study. The studies revealed that we were not preventing macrovascular disease, heart attacks, strokes, the types of things that kill patients with diabetes. Individuals at higher HbA_1c levels that went down to better HbA_1c levels saw some improvement in the microvascular risk. Individuals already at the lower end didn’t see as much improvement. What we saw though that was surprising and concerning was that hypoglycemia, particularly severe hypoglycemia in the VADT trial was a lot more frequent when you try and target the HbA_1c on the lower end. Because of these findings, we proposed the table with a set of ranges. As Dr. Aron noted, HbA_1c is not a perfect test. It does have some variance in the number it presents. The CPG proposed to give individuals target ranges. They should be individualized based upon physiologic age, comorbidities, and life expectancy.

A criticism of the table that I commonly hear is what’s the magic crystal ball for determining somebody’s life expectancy? We don’t have one. This is a clinician’s judgment. The findings might actually change over time with the patient. A target HbA_1c range is something that should be adapted and evolve along with the clinician and patient experience of the diabetes.

There are other important studies. For example, the UKPDS trials that included patients with shorter durations of diabetes and lesser disease to try and get their HbA_1c levels on the lower end. We included that in the chart. Another concept we put forward is the idea of relative risk (RR) vs absolute risk. The RR reduction doesn’t speak to what the actual beginning risk is lowered to for a patient. The UKPDS is often cited for RR reduction of microvascular disease as 37% when an HbA_1c of 7.9% is targeted down to 7.0%. The absolute risk reduction is actually 5 with the number needed to treat to do so is 20 patients. When we present the data, we give it a fair shake. We want individuals to guide therapy that is going to be both beneficial to preventing outcomes but also not harmful to the patient. I would highly recommend clinicians and patients look at this table together when making their decisions.

Dr. Conlin. In the VA/DoD CPG, the HbA_1c target range for individuals with limited life expectancy extends to 9%. That may seem high for some, since most other guidelines propose lower HbA_1c levels. How strong are the data that a person with limited life expectancy, say with end-stage renal disease or advanced complications, could be treated to a range of 8% to 9%? Shouldn’t lower levels actually improve life expectancy in such people?

Dr. Colburn. There’s much less data to support this level, which is why it’s cited in CPG as having weaker evidence. The reason it’s proposed is the experience of the workgroup and the evidence that is available of a high risk for patients with low life expectancy when they reduce their HbA_1c greatly. One of the concerns about being at that level might be the real issue of renal glycosuria for individuals when their blood glucose is reaching above 180 mg/dL, which correlates to the 8% to 9% HbA_1c range. You may have renal loss and risk of dehydration. It is an area where the clinician should be cautious in monitoring a patient in the 8% to 9% HbA_1c range. With that being said, a patient who is having a lot of challenges in their health and extremely advanced conditions could be in that range. We would not expect a reversing of a micro- or macrovascular disease with glycemia control. We’re not going to go back from that level of disease they have. The idea about keeping them there is to prevent the risks of overtreatment and harm to the patient.

Dr. Conlin. Since patients with diabetes can progress over their lifetime from no complications to mild-to-moderate complications to advanced complications, how does the HbA_1c target range evolve as a patient’s condition changes?

Dr. Colburn. As we check for evidence of microvascular disease or neuropathy signs, that evidence often is good for discussion between the clinician and patient to advise them that better control early on may help stem off or reverse some of that change. As those changes solidify, the patient is challenged by microvascular conditions. I would entertain allowing more relaxed HbA_1c ranges to prevent harm to the patient given that we’re not going back. But you have to be careful. We have to consider benefits to the patient and the challenges for controlling glucose.

I hope that this table doesn’t make providers throw up their hands and give up. It’s meant to start a conversation on safety and benefits. With newer agents coming out that can help us control glucose quite well, without as much hypoglycemia risk, clinicians and patients potentially can try and get that HbA_1c into a well-managed range.

Dr. Conlin. The CPG discusses various treatment options that might be available for patients who require pharmacologic therapy. The number of agents available is growing quite markedly. Dr. Colburn, can you describe how the CPG put together the pharmacologic therapy preferences.

Dr. Colburn. The CPG expressively stayed away from trying to promote specific regimens of medications. For example, other guidelines promote starting with certain agents followed by a second-line agent by a third-line agents. The concern that we had about that approach is that the medication landscape is rapidly evolving. The options available to clinicians and patients are really diverse at this moment, and the data are not concrete regarding what works best for a single patient.

Rather than trying to go from one agent to the next, we thought it best to discuss with patients using the SHARE decision-making model, the adverse effects (AEs) and relative benefits that are involved with each medication class to determine what might be best for the person. We have many new agents with evidence for possible reductions in cardiovascular outcomes outside of their glycemic control properties. As those evidences promote a potentially better option for a patient, we wanted to allow the room in management to make a decision together. I will say the CPG as well as all of the other applicable diabetes guidelines for T2DM promote metformin as the first therapy to consider for somebody with newly diagnosed T2DM because of safety and availability and the benefit that’s seen with that medication class. We ask clinicians to access the AHRQ website for updates as the medicines evolve.

In a rapidly changing landscape with new drugs coming into the market, each agency has on their individual website information about individual agents and their formulary status, criteria for use, and prior authorization requirements. We refer clinicians to the appropriate website for more information.
 

Dr. Conlin. There are a series of new medications that have recently come to market that seem to mitigate risk for hypoglycemia. Dr. Lugo, which treatment options carry greater risk? Which treatment options seem to have lesser risk for hypoglycemia?

Amy M. Lugo, PharmD. Insulin and the sulfonylureas have the highest risk of hypoglycemia. The sulfonylureas have fallen out of favor somewhat. One reason is that there are many newer agents that do not cause weight gain or increase the risk of hypoglycemia. Some of the newer insulins may have a lower risk of hypoglycemia and nocturnal hypoglycemia, in particular; however, it is difficult to conclude emphatically that one basal insulin analog is less likely to cause clinically relevant severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia events. This is due to the differences in the definitions of hypoglycemia used in the individual clinical trials, the open label study designs, and the different primary endpoints.

Dr. Conlin. How much affect on HbA_1c might I expect to see using SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists? What would be some of the potential AEs I have to be aware of and therefore could counsel patients about?

Dr. Lugo. Let’s start with SGLT2 inhibitors. It depends on whether they are used as monotherapy or in combination. We prefer that patients start on metformin unless they have a contraindication. When used as monotherapy, the SGLT2s may decrease HbA_1c from 0.4% to 1% from baseline. When combined with additional agents, they can have > 1% improvement in HbA_1c from baseline. There are no head-to-head trials between any of the SGLT2 inhibitors. We cannot say that one is more efficacious than another in lowering HbA_1c. The most common AEs include genital mycotic infections and urinary tract infections. The SGLT2 inhibitors also should be avoided in renal impairment. There was a recent FDA safety alert for the class for risk of ketoacidosis. Additionally, the FDA warned that patients with a history of bladder cancer should avoid dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin has a warning for increased risk of bone fractures, amputation, and decreased bone density.

Other actions of the SGLT2 inhibitors include a reduction in triglycerides and a modest increase in both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The SGLT2 inhibitors also slightly decrease systolic blood pressure (by 4 mm Hg to 6 mm Hg) and body weight (reduction of 1.8 kg)

The GLP-1s are likely to be more efficacious in reducing HbA_1c. Typically we see 1% or greater lowering in HbA_1c from baseline. As a class, the GLP-1 agonists have a lower risk of hypoglycemia; however, the risk increases when combined with sulfonylureas or insulin. The dose of insulin or sulfonylurea will likely need to be decreased when used concomitantly.

Patients are likely to experience weight loss when on a GLP-1 agonist, which is a great benefit. Gastrointestinal AEs such as nausea are common. Adverse effects may differ somewhat between the agents.

Dr. Conlin. Patients’ experience of care is integral to their engagement with treatment as well as their adherence. Ms. Decesare, what are patients looking for from their health care team?

Elaine M. Decesare. Patients are looking for a knowledgeable and compassionate health care team that has a consistent approach and a consistent message and that the team is updated on the knowledge of appropriate treatments and appropriate lifestyle modifications and targets for the care of diabetes.

Also, I think that the team needs to have some empathy for the challenges of living with diabetes. It’s a 24-hour-a-day disorder, 7 days a week. They can’t take vacation from it. They just can’t take a pill and forget about it. It’s a fairly demanding disorder, and sometimes just acknowledging that with the patient can help you with the dialog.

The second thing I think patients want is an effective treatment plan that’s tailored to their needs and lifestyles. That goes in with the shared decision-making approach, but the plan itself really has to be likely to achieve the targets and the goals that you’ve set up. Sometimes I see patients who are doing all they can with their lifestyle changes, but they can’t get to goal, because there isn’t enough medication in the plan. The plan has to be adequate so that the patient can manage their diabetes. In the shared approach, the patient has to buy in to the plan. With the shared decision making they’re more likely to take the plan on as their plan.

Dr. Conlin. How do you respond to patients who feel treatment burnout from having a new dietary plan, an exercise program, regular monitoring of glucose through finger sticks, and in many cases multiple medications and or injections, while potentially not achieving the goals that you and the patient have arrived at?

Ms. Decesare. First, I want to assess their mood. Sometimes patients are depressed, and they actually need help with that. If they have trouble with just the management, we do have behavioral health psychologists on our team that work with patients to get through some of the barriers and discuss some of the feelings that they have about diabetes and diabetes management.

Sometimes we look at the plan again and see if there’s something we can do to make the plan easier. Occasionally, something has happened in their life. Maybe they’re taking care of an elderly parent or they’ve had other health problems that have come about that we need to reassess the plan and make sure that it’s actually doable for them at this point in time.

Certainly diabetes self-management education can be helpful. Some of those approaches can be helpful for finding something that’s going to work for patients in the long run, because it can be a very difficult disorder to manage as time goes on.

Dr. Colburn. Type 2 DM disproportionately affects individuals who are ≥ 65 years compared with younger individuals. Such older patients also are more likely to have cognitive impairment or visual issues. How do we best manage such patients?

Ms. Decesare. When I’m looking at the care plan, social support is very important. If someone has social support and they have a spouse or a son or daughter or someone else that can help them with their diabetes, we oftentimes will get them involved with the plan, as long as it’s fine with the patient, to offer some help, especially with the patients with cognitive problems, because sometimes the patients just cognitively cannot manage diabetes on their own. Prandial insulin could be a really dangerous product for someone who has cognitive disease.

I think you have to look at all the resources that are available. Sometimes you have to change your HbA_1c target range to something that’s going to be manageable for that patient at that time. It might not be perfect, but it would be better to have no hypoglycemia rather than a real aggressive HbA_1c target or a target range, if that’s what’s going to keep the patient safe.

Dr. Conlin. We thank our discussants for sharing very practical advice on how to implement the CPG. We hope this information supports clinicians as they develop treatment plans based on each patient's unique characteristics and goals of care.

Micrograph showing MM

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

STRO-001 is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD74, a protein highly expressed in MM and other B-cell malignancies.

Sutro Biopharma, Inc., is currently studying STRO-001 in a phase 1 trial enrolling separate dose-escalation cohorts for MM and B-cell lymphoma.

Preclinical research of STRO-001 in MM was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

Researchers examined bone marrow samples from MM patients and detected CD74 expression in 35 of the 36 samples, including specimens from patients who were treatment-naïve and patients who had been heavily pretreated with chemotherapy and stem cell transplant.

The researchers then found that STRO-001 demonstrated cytotoxicity in MM cell lines.

STRO-001 also reduced tumor burden in two disseminated xenograft models (ARP-1 and MM.1S) and prolonged survival in one of them (MM.1S).

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Micrograph showing MM

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

STRO-001 is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD74, a protein highly expressed in MM and other B-cell malignancies.

Sutro Biopharma, Inc., is currently studying STRO-001 in a phase 1 trial enrolling separate dose-escalation cohorts for MM and B-cell lymphoma.

Preclinical research of STRO-001 in MM was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

Researchers examined bone marrow samples from MM patients and detected CD74 expression in 35 of the 36 samples, including specimens from patients who were treatment-naïve and patients who had been heavily pretreated with chemotherapy and stem cell transplant.

The researchers then found that STRO-001 demonstrated cytotoxicity in MM cell lines.

STRO-001 also reduced tumor burden in two disseminated xenograft models (ARP-1 and MM.1S) and prolonged survival in one of them (MM.1S).

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Micrograph showing MM

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan designation to STRO-001 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

STRO-001 is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD74, a protein highly expressed in MM and other B-cell malignancies.

Sutro Biopharma, Inc., is currently studying STRO-001 in a phase 1 trial enrolling separate dose-escalation cohorts for MM and B-cell lymphoma.

Preclinical research of STRO-001 in MM was presented at the 2017 ASH Annual Meeting.

Researchers examined bone marrow samples from MM patients and detected CD74 expression in 35 of the 36 samples, including specimens from patients who were treatment-naïve and patients who had been heavily pretreated with chemotherapy and stem cell transplant.

The researchers then found that STRO-001 demonstrated cytotoxicity in MM cell lines.

STRO-001 also reduced tumor burden in two disseminated xenograft models (ARP-1 and MM.1S) and prolonged survival in one of them (MM.1S).

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Obesity and weight gain are linked to increased risk of colorectal cancer in younger women, according to an analysis of a large, prospective U.S. cohort study.

Young women who were obese had a nearly twofold increase in risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with women of normal weight, authors of the study reported in JAMA Oncology.

The findings suggest body weight could be used to “personalize and complement” early cancer screening strategies among adults younger than 50 years, said investigator Po-Hong Liu, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and coauthors.

“Given that most of these younger cases are diagnosed symptomatically with more advanced tumors and with a significant influence on years of life lost, our findings reinforce the benefits of maintaining a healthy weight throughout life,” Dr. Liu and coinvestigators said in their report.

Their analysis was based on the ongoing Nurses Health Study II, which began in 1989 and enrolled a total of 116,430 women between the ages of 25 and 42 years in 14 U.S. states. Women completed questionnaires on demographics, medical and health information, and lifestyle factors every 2 years after enrollment.

Dr. Liu and colleagues were able to document 114 cases of colorectal cancer over a median of 13.9 years of follow-up in 85,256 women who had no cancer or inflammatory bowel disease when they were enrolled in the study. The median age at diagnosis for these cancers was 45 years.

Obesity was independently associated with increased risk of these early-onset colorectal cancers, the investigators found in multivariable analysis.

Women with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher had a relative risk of 1.93 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.25) versus women with normal BMIs in the 18.5-22.9 kg/m² range, according to results of the analysis, they reported.

There was an apparent linear trend between increasing weight and increasing colorectal cancer risk, they added in their report.

They also found links between BMI in early adulthood and risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, including a relative risk of 1.63 for women who reported a BMI of 23 kg/m² or higher at 18 years of age, versus women with a BMI of 18.5-20.9 kg/m² at that age.

Similarly, increase in weight since early adulthood was associated with increased cancer risk, they reported.

While the link between excess weight and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality is well established in previous studies, this study is one of few reports looking at the association in younger individuals, according to Dr. Liu and colleagues.

This is thought to be the first prospective study looking at the link between obesity and risk of colorectal cancer diagnosed before the age of 50, they added.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Liu had no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study. One coauthor reported consulting fees from Bayer Pharma AG, Janssen, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Liu P-H et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4280.

Obesity and weight gain are linked to increased risk of colorectal cancer in younger women, according to an analysis of a large, prospective U.S. cohort study.

Young women who were obese had a nearly twofold increase in risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with women of normal weight, authors of the study reported in JAMA Oncology.

The findings suggest body weight could be used to “personalize and complement” early cancer screening strategies among adults younger than 50 years, said investigator Po-Hong Liu, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and coauthors.

“Given that most of these younger cases are diagnosed symptomatically with more advanced tumors and with a significant influence on years of life lost, our findings reinforce the benefits of maintaining a healthy weight throughout life,” Dr. Liu and coinvestigators said in their report.

Their analysis was based on the ongoing Nurses Health Study II, which began in 1989 and enrolled a total of 116,430 women between the ages of 25 and 42 years in 14 U.S. states. Women completed questionnaires on demographics, medical and health information, and lifestyle factors every 2 years after enrollment.

Dr. Liu and colleagues were able to document 114 cases of colorectal cancer over a median of 13.9 years of follow-up in 85,256 women who had no cancer or inflammatory bowel disease when they were enrolled in the study. The median age at diagnosis for these cancers was 45 years.

Obesity was independently associated with increased risk of these early-onset colorectal cancers, the investigators found in multivariable analysis.

Women with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher had a relative risk of 1.93 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.25) versus women with normal BMIs in the 18.5-22.9 kg/m² range, according to results of the analysis, they reported.

There was an apparent linear trend between increasing weight and increasing colorectal cancer risk, they added in their report.

They also found links between BMI in early adulthood and risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, including a relative risk of 1.63 for women who reported a BMI of 23 kg/m² or higher at 18 years of age, versus women with a BMI of 18.5-20.9 kg/m² at that age.

Similarly, increase in weight since early adulthood was associated with increased cancer risk, they reported.

While the link between excess weight and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality is well established in previous studies, this study is one of few reports looking at the association in younger individuals, according to Dr. Liu and colleagues.

This is thought to be the first prospective study looking at the link between obesity and risk of colorectal cancer diagnosed before the age of 50, they added.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Liu had no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study. One coauthor reported consulting fees from Bayer Pharma AG, Janssen, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Liu P-H et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4280.

Obesity and weight gain are linked to increased risk of colorectal cancer in younger women, according to an analysis of a large, prospective U.S. cohort study.

Young women who were obese had a nearly twofold increase in risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with women of normal weight, authors of the study reported in JAMA Oncology.

The findings suggest body weight could be used to “personalize and complement” early cancer screening strategies among adults younger than 50 years, said investigator Po-Hong Liu, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and coauthors.

“Given that most of these younger cases are diagnosed symptomatically with more advanced tumors and with a significant influence on years of life lost, our findings reinforce the benefits of maintaining a healthy weight throughout life,” Dr. Liu and coinvestigators said in their report.

Their analysis was based on the ongoing Nurses Health Study II, which began in 1989 and enrolled a total of 116,430 women between the ages of 25 and 42 years in 14 U.S. states. Women completed questionnaires on demographics, medical and health information, and lifestyle factors every 2 years after enrollment.

Dr. Liu and colleagues were able to document 114 cases of colorectal cancer over a median of 13.9 years of follow-up in 85,256 women who had no cancer or inflammatory bowel disease when they were enrolled in the study. The median age at diagnosis for these cancers was 45 years.

Obesity was independently associated with increased risk of these early-onset colorectal cancers, the investigators found in multivariable analysis.

Women with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher had a relative risk of 1.93 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.25) versus women with normal BMIs in the 18.5-22.9 kg/m² range, according to results of the analysis, they reported.

There was an apparent linear trend between increasing weight and increasing colorectal cancer risk, they added in their report.

They also found links between BMI in early adulthood and risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, including a relative risk of 1.63 for women who reported a BMI of 23 kg/m² or higher at 18 years of age, versus women with a BMI of 18.5-20.9 kg/m² at that age.

Similarly, increase in weight since early adulthood was associated with increased cancer risk, they reported.

While the link between excess weight and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality is well established in previous studies, this study is one of few reports looking at the association in younger individuals, according to Dr. Liu and colleagues.

This is thought to be the first prospective study looking at the link between obesity and risk of colorectal cancer diagnosed before the age of 50, they added.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Liu had no conflict of interest disclosures related to the study. One coauthor reported consulting fees from Bayer Pharma AG, Janssen, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Liu P-H et al. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4280.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are taking benzodiazepines have a more than doubled risk of suicide, compared with similar patients not taking the medications.

The risk of all-cause mortality in COPD patients was not increased with benzodiazepine use, according to the results of research published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

Benzodiazepines were often prescribed for people with COPD to manage chronic symptoms of anxiety, dyspnea, and insomnia that affect quality of life, Lucas M. Donovan, MD, of the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues noted.

However, there were documented concerns that the class of medications could lead to respiratory depression and increase the risk of exacerbations. According to the authors, one particular area of controversy was the long-term use of benzodiazepines, with up to 40% of COPD patients using them on a long-term basis against the advice of clinical guidelines.

They noted that benzodiazepines were also often used to treat dyspnea, a fact which had the potential to introduce confounding into research as the symptom was linked to increased mortality, nonfatal respiratory events, and suicidal ideation.

“One strategy to reduce confounding is to examine risks of benzodiazepines in a sample of patients who are likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines to manage nonrespiratory symptoms, and patients with comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) provide one such opportunity,” they wrote.

In the current study, the research team therefore used data from a nationwide cohort of patients with comorbid COPD and PTSD identified from the Veteran’s Health Administration administrative data between 2010 and 2012. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the 2 years following index among propensity-matched veterans with long-term benzodiazepine use, compared with nonusers.

Of 44,555 patients with COPD and PTSD included in the analysis, 29,237 had no benzodiazepine use, 4,782 patients had short-term use (less than 90 days’ supply), and 10,536 patients had long-term use (equal to or more than 90 days).

With a matched sample of 19,552 patients who did not receive benzodiazepines, the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different among those with long-term benzodiazepine use relative to those without use (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.18).

Furthermore, the specific relative risks of death related to obstructive lung disease and accidental overdose did not differ between the two groups.

Among matched and unmatched patients, short-term benzodiazepine use (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), but not long-term use (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13) was associated with increased mortality. However, the authors said it was “worth noting that the associations with short-term use were found in analyses with unmatched patients and may be confounded by the specific episodic reasons for short-term benzodiazepine use such as acute illnesses not captured in our data.”

According to the research team, the most “consistent” and “striking” finding in their analysis was the link between benzodiazepine use and suicide.

They saw a substantially greater risk for death by suicide among those with long-term benzodiazepine use (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.14-4.79). After adjusting all analyses by propensity score for any benzodiazepine exposure, individuals with both short-term and long-term use of benzodiazepines were at a greater risk of suicide (short-term: HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.16-5.26; long-term: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.33-4.16).

“Similar to other estimates of the suicide rate within the veteran population (0.3 per 1,000 person-years), the rate of suicide among those without benzodiazepine use (0.4-0.5 per 1,000 person-years) in our sample was greater than the rate in the civilian population (0.1 per 1,000 person-years). However the risk of suicide was substantially greater among those with short- and long-term benzodiazepine use (1.1 per 1,000 person-years),” they wrote.

The use of long-acting benzodiazepines, such as diazepam, chlordiazepoxide, and flurazepam, was also positively associated with suicide (HR for every 10 days of exposure, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13), and higher prescribed doses were associated with an increased risk of accidental overdose (HR for every 10 mg of diazepam equivalents, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31).

The findings suggested that long-acting agents could pose a particular suicide risk but also “may relate to the sustained half-life of medication or the more severe and sustained mental health symptoms that prompt the use of long-acting agents,” the investigators wrote.

Concomitant opioid use was associated with increased risk of overall mortality (HR for every 10 days of exposure, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) and accidental overdose (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18). Individuals with long-term benzodiazepine use also had a higher rate of psychiatric admissions (incidence rate ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65).

The researchers concluded that, overall, their results did not suggest that discontinuation of long-term benzodiazepines would reduce overall mortality or death related to obstructive lung disease or overdose.

However, they advised that providers consider discontinuing benzodiazepines in patients already at high suicide risk as well as avoiding the concomitant use of opioids.

“Furthermore, providers should be aware of the risks that new benzodiazepine prescriptions may present to patients with COPD and PTSD without prior exposure to these medications,” they added.

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Heath grants, the ASPIRE (Academic Sleep Pulmonary Integrated Research/Clinical) Fellowship, and a VA grant.

SOURCE: Donovan LM et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 Oct 12. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201802-145OC. Epub ahead of print.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are taking benzodiazepines have a more than doubled risk of suicide, compared with similar patients not taking the medications.

The risk of all-cause mortality in COPD patients was not increased with benzodiazepine use, according to the results of research published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

Benzodiazepines were often prescribed for people with COPD to manage chronic symptoms of anxiety, dyspnea, and insomnia that affect quality of life, Lucas M. Donovan, MD, of the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues noted.

However, there were documented concerns that the class of medications could lead to respiratory depression and increase the risk of exacerbations. According to the authors, one particular area of controversy was the long-term use of benzodiazepines, with up to 40% of COPD patients using them on a long-term basis against the advice of clinical guidelines.

They noted that benzodiazepines were also often used to treat dyspnea, a fact which had the potential to introduce confounding into research as the symptom was linked to increased mortality, nonfatal respiratory events, and suicidal ideation.

“One strategy to reduce confounding is to examine risks of benzodiazepines in a sample of patients who are likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines to manage nonrespiratory symptoms, and patients with comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) provide one such opportunity,” they wrote.

In the current study, the research team therefore used data from a nationwide cohort of patients with comorbid COPD and PTSD identified from the Veteran’s Health Administration administrative data between 2010 and 2012. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the 2 years following index among propensity-matched veterans with long-term benzodiazepine use, compared with nonusers.

Of 44,555 patients with COPD and PTSD included in the analysis, 29,237 had no benzodiazepine use, 4,782 patients had short-term use (less than 90 days’ supply), and 10,536 patients had long-term use (equal to or more than 90 days).

With a matched sample of 19,552 patients who did not receive benzodiazepines, the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different among those with long-term benzodiazepine use relative to those without use (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.18).

Furthermore, the specific relative risks of death related to obstructive lung disease and accidental overdose did not differ between the two groups.

Among matched and unmatched patients, short-term benzodiazepine use (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), but not long-term use (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13) was associated with increased mortality. However, the authors said it was “worth noting that the associations with short-term use were found in analyses with unmatched patients and may be confounded by the specific episodic reasons for short-term benzodiazepine use such as acute illnesses not captured in our data.”

According to the research team, the most “consistent” and “striking” finding in their analysis was the link between benzodiazepine use and suicide.

They saw a substantially greater risk for death by suicide among those with long-term benzodiazepine use (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.14-4.79). After adjusting all analyses by propensity score for any benzodiazepine exposure, individuals with both short-term and long-term use of benzodiazepines were at a greater risk of suicide (short-term: HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.16-5.26; long-term: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.33-4.16).

“Similar to other estimates of the suicide rate within the veteran population (0.3 per 1,000 person-years), the rate of suicide among those without benzodiazepine use (0.4-0.5 per 1,000 person-years) in our sample was greater than the rate in the civilian population (0.1 per 1,000 person-years). However the risk of suicide was substantially greater among those with short- and long-term benzodiazepine use (1.1 per 1,000 person-years),” they wrote.

The use of long-acting benzodiazepines, such as diazepam, chlordiazepoxide, and flurazepam, was also positively associated with suicide (HR for every 10 days of exposure, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13), and higher prescribed doses were associated with an increased risk of accidental overdose (HR for every 10 mg of diazepam equivalents, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31).

The findings suggested that long-acting agents could pose a particular suicide risk but also “may relate to the sustained half-life of medication or the more severe and sustained mental health symptoms that prompt the use of long-acting agents,” the investigators wrote.

Concomitant opioid use was associated with increased risk of overall mortality (HR for every 10 days of exposure, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) and accidental overdose (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18). Individuals with long-term benzodiazepine use also had a higher rate of psychiatric admissions (incidence rate ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65).

The researchers concluded that, overall, their results did not suggest that discontinuation of long-term benzodiazepines would reduce overall mortality or death related to obstructive lung disease or overdose.

However, they advised that providers consider discontinuing benzodiazepines in patients already at high suicide risk as well as avoiding the concomitant use of opioids.

“Furthermore, providers should be aware of the risks that new benzodiazepine prescriptions may present to patients with COPD and PTSD without prior exposure to these medications,” they added.

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Heath grants, the ASPIRE (Academic Sleep Pulmonary Integrated Research/Clinical) Fellowship, and a VA grant.

SOURCE: Donovan LM et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 Oct 12. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201802-145OC. Epub ahead of print.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are taking benzodiazepines have a more than doubled risk of suicide, compared with similar patients not taking the medications.

The risk of all-cause mortality in COPD patients was not increased with benzodiazepine use, according to the results of research published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

Benzodiazepines were often prescribed for people with COPD to manage chronic symptoms of anxiety, dyspnea, and insomnia that affect quality of life, Lucas M. Donovan, MD, of the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues noted.

However, there were documented concerns that the class of medications could lead to respiratory depression and increase the risk of exacerbations. According to the authors, one particular area of controversy was the long-term use of benzodiazepines, with up to 40% of COPD patients using them on a long-term basis against the advice of clinical guidelines.

They noted that benzodiazepines were also often used to treat dyspnea, a fact which had the potential to introduce confounding into research as the symptom was linked to increased mortality, nonfatal respiratory events, and suicidal ideation.

“One strategy to reduce confounding is to examine risks of benzodiazepines in a sample of patients who are likely to be prescribed benzodiazepines to manage nonrespiratory symptoms, and patients with comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) provide one such opportunity,” they wrote.

In the current study, the research team therefore used data from a nationwide cohort of patients with comorbid COPD and PTSD identified from the Veteran’s Health Administration administrative data between 2010 and 2012. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the 2 years following index among propensity-matched veterans with long-term benzodiazepine use, compared with nonusers.

Of 44,555 patients with COPD and PTSD included in the analysis, 29,237 had no benzodiazepine use, 4,782 patients had short-term use (less than 90 days’ supply), and 10,536 patients had long-term use (equal to or more than 90 days).

With a matched sample of 19,552 patients who did not receive benzodiazepines, the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different among those with long-term benzodiazepine use relative to those without use (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.18).

Furthermore, the specific relative risks of death related to obstructive lung disease and accidental overdose did not differ between the two groups.

Among matched and unmatched patients, short-term benzodiazepine use (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28), but not long-term use (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13) was associated with increased mortality. However, the authors said it was “worth noting that the associations with short-term use were found in analyses with unmatched patients and may be confounded by the specific episodic reasons for short-term benzodiazepine use such as acute illnesses not captured in our data.”

According to the research team, the most “consistent” and “striking” finding in their analysis was the link between benzodiazepine use and suicide.

They saw a substantially greater risk for death by suicide among those with long-term benzodiazepine use (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.14-4.79). After adjusting all analyses by propensity score for any benzodiazepine exposure, individuals with both short-term and long-term use of benzodiazepines were at a greater risk of suicide (short-term: HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.16-5.26; long-term: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.33-4.16).

“Similar to other estimates of the suicide rate within the veteran population (0.3 per 1,000 person-years), the rate of suicide among those without benzodiazepine use (0.4-0.5 per 1,000 person-years) in our sample was greater than the rate in the civilian population (0.1 per 1,000 person-years). However the risk of suicide was substantially greater among those with short- and long-term benzodiazepine use (1.1 per 1,000 person-years),” they wrote.

The use of long-acting benzodiazepines, such as diazepam, chlordiazepoxide, and flurazepam, was also positively associated with suicide (HR for every 10 days of exposure, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13), and higher prescribed doses were associated with an increased risk of accidental overdose (HR for every 10 mg of diazepam equivalents, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31).

The findings suggested that long-acting agents could pose a particular suicide risk but also “may relate to the sustained half-life of medication or the more severe and sustained mental health symptoms that prompt the use of long-acting agents,” the investigators wrote.

Concomitant opioid use was associated with increased risk of overall mortality (HR for every 10 days of exposure, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) and accidental overdose (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18). Individuals with long-term benzodiazepine use also had a higher rate of psychiatric admissions (incidence rate ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.14-1.65).

The researchers concluded that, overall, their results did not suggest that discontinuation of long-term benzodiazepines would reduce overall mortality or death related to obstructive lung disease or overdose.

However, they advised that providers consider discontinuing benzodiazepines in patients already at high suicide risk as well as avoiding the concomitant use of opioids.

“Furthermore, providers should be aware of the risks that new benzodiazepine prescriptions may present to patients with COPD and PTSD without prior exposure to these medications,” they added.

The study was funded by several National Institutes of Heath grants, the ASPIRE (Academic Sleep Pulmonary Integrated Research/Clinical) Fellowship, and a VA grant.

SOURCE: Donovan LM et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 Oct 12. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201802-145OC. Epub ahead of print.

The development of a 3-D brain organoid that contains all six of the major cell types found in adult human brain cortex will be the featured topic of a presentation at the Young Research Forum of the International Conference on Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders in New York on Oct. 20.

Goodwell Nzou, a doctoral student at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., will give the presentation, titled “The development of a multicellular three dimensional neurovascular unit model with a functional blood-brain barrier” at 1:45 p.m.

In the study that Mr. Nzou and his colleagues at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine published in May in Scientific Reports, they noted that, in addition to the model’s use of all six of the major cell types found in adult human brain cortex (human brain microvascular endothelial cells, pericytes, astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and neurons), they found that it also promotes the formation of a blood-brain barrier that mimics normal human anatomy.

The researchers said their 3-D in vitro system could have potential applications in drug discovery, toxicity screening, and disease modeling for neurologic diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. They demonstrated the model’s use in toxicity assessment studies for molecules that have the potential to cross or open the blood-brain barrier and also reported establishing a model of the blood-brain barrier during clinical ischemia “showing physiologic responses under hypoxic conditions.”

[email protected]

The development of a 3-D brain organoid that contains all six of the major cell types found in adult human brain cortex will be the featured topic of a presentation at the Young Research Forum of the International Conference on Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders in New York on Oct. 20.

Goodwell Nzou, a doctoral student at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., will give the presentation, titled “The development of a multicellular three dimensional neurovascular unit model with a functional blood-brain barrier” at 1:45 p.m.

In the study that Mr. Nzou and his colleagues at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine published in May in Scientific Reports, they noted that, in addition to the model’s use of all six of the major cell types found in adult human brain cortex (human brain microvascular endothelial cells, pericytes, astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and neurons), they found that it also promotes the formation of a blood-brain barrier that mimics normal human anatomy.

The researchers said their 3-D in vitro system could have potential applications in drug discovery, toxicity screening, and disease modeling for neurologic diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. They demonstrated the model’s use in toxicity assessment studies for molecules that have the potential to cross or open the blood-brain barrier and also reported establishing a model of the blood-brain barrier during clinical ischemia “showing physiologic responses under hypoxic conditions.”

[email protected]

The development of a 3-D brain organoid that contains all six of the major cell types found in adult human brain cortex will be the featured topic of a presentation at the Young Research Forum of the International Conference on Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders in New York on Oct. 20.

Goodwell Nzou, a doctoral student at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., will give the presentation, titled “The development of a multicellular three dimensional neurovascular unit model with a functional blood-brain barrier” at 1:45 p.m.

In the study that Mr. Nzou and his colleagues at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine published in May in Scientific Reports, they noted that, in addition to the model’s use of all six of the major cell types found in adult human brain cortex (human brain microvascular endothelial cells, pericytes, astrocytes, microglia, oligodendrocytes, and neurons), they found that it also promotes the formation of a blood-brain barrier that mimics normal human anatomy.

The researchers said their 3-D in vitro system could have potential applications in drug discovery, toxicity screening, and disease modeling for neurologic diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. They demonstrated the model’s use in toxicity assessment studies for molecules that have the potential to cross or open the blood-brain barrier and also reported establishing a model of the blood-brain barrier during clinical ischemia “showing physiologic responses under hypoxic conditions.”

[email protected]

BERLIN – Higher vitamin D levels at multiple sclerosis onset were predictive of higher cognitive function 11 years on, and heavy smokers took a “clinically significant” cognitive hit, according to a recent study.

“Higher vitamin D in the first years after [clinically isolated syndrome] was associated with better cognitive function and lower neuronal injury at year 11,” said Marianna Cortese, MD, presenting her findings during a late-breaking abstracts session at the annual congress of the European Society for Education and Treatment in Multiple Sclerosis.

“Vitamin D supplementation during the early years with the disease might be neuroprotective,” she said.

According to Dr. Cortese, 40%-70% of patients with MS will experience cognitive decline across their disease course; there is no currently known specific treatment for cognitive decline.

Smoking, low levels of vitamin D [as 25(OH)D], and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) seropositivity are known risk factors for MS, and have been associated with more active MS and progressive disease, but whether these factors predict cognitive status had not been known, said Dr. Cortese of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Accordingly, she said, investigators in the BENEFIT-11 trial sought to determine whether low vitamin D levels, smoking status, and EBV seropositivity detected early after the first disease manifestation in MS would affect later cognitive function.

The study is an observational study that followed 278 participants with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in the original BENEFIT trial, which was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of interferon beta-1b for early treatment of clinically isolated syndrome. The primary goal of BENEFIT-11, said Dr. Cortese, was to assess the effects of early treatment on long-term outcomes.

“To minimize reverse causation, we used exposure status in the first 2 years after CIS to predict progression outcomes at year 11,” explained Dr. Cortese. The investigators obtained biomarkers at baseline, and at study months 6, 12, and 24. Cotinine was used as a biomarker for current or recent nicotine exposure. Serum 25(OH)D levels were used to determine vitamin D levels, and immunoglobulin G levels for EBV antigen-1 were used for EBV seropositivity.

In terms of outcome measurements, the cognitive performance measure used in the study was the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, a validated test of processing speed, attention, and working memory, said Dr. Cortese. This test was performed at enrollment, and at study years 1, 2, 5, and 11. At study year 11, neuroaxonal injury was measured using serum neurofilament light chain levels.

In multivariable analysis, the study design adjusted for baseline age and sex, treatment allocation at baseline, unifocal versus multifocal disease seen on baseline magnetic resonance imaging, body mass index, and whether the patient was treated with steroids during the initial CIS.

“Higher quintiles of mean vitamin D levels during the first 2 years were associated with lower odds of scoring worse on the PASAT at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese (P-trend = .028). The significant trend across the quintiles “suggests a dose-response relationship,” she said.* For vitamin D levels over the first 5 years, the P-trend was .049. Dr. Cortese explained that “scoring worse” meant scoring below the median.

Looking at the effect of early vitamin D levels another way, incremental increases of 50 nmol/L of mean 25(OH)D in study months 6-24 predicted 65% lower odds of having a PASAT score below the median at year 11 (P = .027). “Within-person increases in vitamin D during the study were also significantly associated with a better PASAT score when we used the repeated measurement in a linear mixed model,” said Dr. Cortese.

Turning to the effect of smoking on cognitive function at year 11, Dr. Cortese explained that cotinine levels obtained during the first 2 years were all used to determine smoking status. If all levels were below 10 ng/mL, the participant was designated a nonsmoker (N = 125). If any levels were above 25 ng/mL, that patient was classified as a smoker. The investigators also looked at the small number of patients (N = 9) who were very heavy smokers, with cotinine levels over 191 ng/mL.

“Smokers – compared to nonsmokers – had a significantly lower standardized PASAT score at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese (P trend = .042 in age- and sex-adjusted analysis; P-trend = .056 in full multivariable analysis). “Actually, smokers had an up to 0.6-standard deviation-lower PASAT score at year 11 when we looked at heavy smokers. ...This difference corresponds to about 5 points of the PASAT, so I would say [the score is] clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Cortese pointed out that early smoking, again, showed a dose-response relationship with later cognitive status. “It continues to be important to encourage smoking cessation for patients.”

Epstein-Barr antibodies were not associated with cognitive function at year 11, according to the analysis (P-trend = .93).

“The findings of neuroaxonal injury at year 11 using serum neurofilament light-chain measures corroborated the main findings on cognitive function at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese.

For a 50-nmol higher vitamin D level within the first 5 years, neurofilament light chain levels at year 11 were 20% lower, said Dr. Cortese. Conversely, patients who had cotinine levels higher than 25 ng/mL during the first 5 years had neurofilament light chain levels 20% higher than other participants: “So they did worse. They had more neuroaxonal loss,” said Dr. Cortese. No association was seen between neurofilament light chain levels at year 11 and early EBV status, she said.

Though just cognitive function data from BENEFIT-11 were reported by Dr. Cortese, she said that radiologic and other clinical data are also being studied and will be reported in the future.

Dr. Cortese reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, with clinical support from Bayer HealthCare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cortese M et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Late breaking abstracts session.

*Correction, 10/25/18: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the relationship between vitamin D scores during the first 2 years and PASAT scores at year 11. 

BERLIN – Higher vitamin D levels at multiple sclerosis onset were predictive of higher cognitive function 11 years on, and heavy smokers took a “clinically significant” cognitive hit, according to a recent study.

“Higher vitamin D in the first years after [clinically isolated syndrome] was associated with better cognitive function and lower neuronal injury at year 11,” said Marianna Cortese, MD, presenting her findings during a late-breaking abstracts session at the annual congress of the European Society for Education and Treatment in Multiple Sclerosis.

“Vitamin D supplementation during the early years with the disease might be neuroprotective,” she said.

According to Dr. Cortese, 40%-70% of patients with MS will experience cognitive decline across their disease course; there is no currently known specific treatment for cognitive decline.

Smoking, low levels of vitamin D [as 25(OH)D], and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) seropositivity are known risk factors for MS, and have been associated with more active MS and progressive disease, but whether these factors predict cognitive status had not been known, said Dr. Cortese of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Accordingly, she said, investigators in the BENEFIT-11 trial sought to determine whether low vitamin D levels, smoking status, and EBV seropositivity detected early after the first disease manifestation in MS would affect later cognitive function.

The study is an observational study that followed 278 participants with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in the original BENEFIT trial, which was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of interferon beta-1b for early treatment of clinically isolated syndrome. The primary goal of BENEFIT-11, said Dr. Cortese, was to assess the effects of early treatment on long-term outcomes.

“To minimize reverse causation, we used exposure status in the first 2 years after CIS to predict progression outcomes at year 11,” explained Dr. Cortese. The investigators obtained biomarkers at baseline, and at study months 6, 12, and 24. Cotinine was used as a biomarker for current or recent nicotine exposure. Serum 25(OH)D levels were used to determine vitamin D levels, and immunoglobulin G levels for EBV antigen-1 were used for EBV seropositivity.

In terms of outcome measurements, the cognitive performance measure used in the study was the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, a validated test of processing speed, attention, and working memory, said Dr. Cortese. This test was performed at enrollment, and at study years 1, 2, 5, and 11. At study year 11, neuroaxonal injury was measured using serum neurofilament light chain levels.

In multivariable analysis, the study design adjusted for baseline age and sex, treatment allocation at baseline, unifocal versus multifocal disease seen on baseline magnetic resonance imaging, body mass index, and whether the patient was treated with steroids during the initial CIS.

“Higher quintiles of mean vitamin D levels during the first 2 years were associated with lower odds of scoring worse on the PASAT at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese (P-trend = .028). The significant trend across the quintiles “suggests a dose-response relationship,” she said.* For vitamin D levels over the first 5 years, the P-trend was .049. Dr. Cortese explained that “scoring worse” meant scoring below the median.

Looking at the effect of early vitamin D levels another way, incremental increases of 50 nmol/L of mean 25(OH)D in study months 6-24 predicted 65% lower odds of having a PASAT score below the median at year 11 (P = .027). “Within-person increases in vitamin D during the study were also significantly associated with a better PASAT score when we used the repeated measurement in a linear mixed model,” said Dr. Cortese.

Turning to the effect of smoking on cognitive function at year 11, Dr. Cortese explained that cotinine levels obtained during the first 2 years were all used to determine smoking status. If all levels were below 10 ng/mL, the participant was designated a nonsmoker (N = 125). If any levels were above 25 ng/mL, that patient was classified as a smoker. The investigators also looked at the small number of patients (N = 9) who were very heavy smokers, with cotinine levels over 191 ng/mL.

“Smokers – compared to nonsmokers – had a significantly lower standardized PASAT score at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese (P trend = .042 in age- and sex-adjusted analysis; P-trend = .056 in full multivariable analysis). “Actually, smokers had an up to 0.6-standard deviation-lower PASAT score at year 11 when we looked at heavy smokers. ...This difference corresponds to about 5 points of the PASAT, so I would say [the score is] clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Cortese pointed out that early smoking, again, showed a dose-response relationship with later cognitive status. “It continues to be important to encourage smoking cessation for patients.”

Epstein-Barr antibodies were not associated with cognitive function at year 11, according to the analysis (P-trend = .93).

“The findings of neuroaxonal injury at year 11 using serum neurofilament light-chain measures corroborated the main findings on cognitive function at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese.

For a 50-nmol higher vitamin D level within the first 5 years, neurofilament light chain levels at year 11 were 20% lower, said Dr. Cortese. Conversely, patients who had cotinine levels higher than 25 ng/mL during the first 5 years had neurofilament light chain levels 20% higher than other participants: “So they did worse. They had more neuroaxonal loss,” said Dr. Cortese. No association was seen between neurofilament light chain levels at year 11 and early EBV status, she said.

Though just cognitive function data from BENEFIT-11 were reported by Dr. Cortese, she said that radiologic and other clinical data are also being studied and will be reported in the future.

Dr. Cortese reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, with clinical support from Bayer HealthCare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cortese M et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Late breaking abstracts session.

*Correction, 10/25/18: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the relationship between vitamin D scores during the first 2 years and PASAT scores at year 11. 

BERLIN – Higher vitamin D levels at multiple sclerosis onset were predictive of higher cognitive function 11 years on, and heavy smokers took a “clinically significant” cognitive hit, according to a recent study.

“Higher vitamin D in the first years after [clinically isolated syndrome] was associated with better cognitive function and lower neuronal injury at year 11,” said Marianna Cortese, MD, presenting her findings during a late-breaking abstracts session at the annual congress of the European Society for Education and Treatment in Multiple Sclerosis.

“Vitamin D supplementation during the early years with the disease might be neuroprotective,” she said.

According to Dr. Cortese, 40%-70% of patients with MS will experience cognitive decline across their disease course; there is no currently known specific treatment for cognitive decline.

Smoking, low levels of vitamin D [as 25(OH)D], and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) seropositivity are known risk factors for MS, and have been associated with more active MS and progressive disease, but whether these factors predict cognitive status had not been known, said Dr. Cortese of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Accordingly, she said, investigators in the BENEFIT-11 trial sought to determine whether low vitamin D levels, smoking status, and EBV seropositivity detected early after the first disease manifestation in MS would affect later cognitive function.

The study is an observational study that followed 278 participants with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in the original BENEFIT trial, which was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of interferon beta-1b for early treatment of clinically isolated syndrome. The primary goal of BENEFIT-11, said Dr. Cortese, was to assess the effects of early treatment on long-term outcomes.

“To minimize reverse causation, we used exposure status in the first 2 years after CIS to predict progression outcomes at year 11,” explained Dr. Cortese. The investigators obtained biomarkers at baseline, and at study months 6, 12, and 24. Cotinine was used as a biomarker for current or recent nicotine exposure. Serum 25(OH)D levels were used to determine vitamin D levels, and immunoglobulin G levels for EBV antigen-1 were used for EBV seropositivity.

In terms of outcome measurements, the cognitive performance measure used in the study was the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, a validated test of processing speed, attention, and working memory, said Dr. Cortese. This test was performed at enrollment, and at study years 1, 2, 5, and 11. At study year 11, neuroaxonal injury was measured using serum neurofilament light chain levels.

In multivariable analysis, the study design adjusted for baseline age and sex, treatment allocation at baseline, unifocal versus multifocal disease seen on baseline magnetic resonance imaging, body mass index, and whether the patient was treated with steroids during the initial CIS.

“Higher quintiles of mean vitamin D levels during the first 2 years were associated with lower odds of scoring worse on the PASAT at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese (P-trend = .028). The significant trend across the quintiles “suggests a dose-response relationship,” she said.* For vitamin D levels over the first 5 years, the P-trend was .049. Dr. Cortese explained that “scoring worse” meant scoring below the median.

Looking at the effect of early vitamin D levels another way, incremental increases of 50 nmol/L of mean 25(OH)D in study months 6-24 predicted 65% lower odds of having a PASAT score below the median at year 11 (P = .027). “Within-person increases in vitamin D during the study were also significantly associated with a better PASAT score when we used the repeated measurement in a linear mixed model,” said Dr. Cortese.

Turning to the effect of smoking on cognitive function at year 11, Dr. Cortese explained that cotinine levels obtained during the first 2 years were all used to determine smoking status. If all levels were below 10 ng/mL, the participant was designated a nonsmoker (N = 125). If any levels were above 25 ng/mL, that patient was classified as a smoker. The investigators also looked at the small number of patients (N = 9) who were very heavy smokers, with cotinine levels over 191 ng/mL.

“Smokers – compared to nonsmokers – had a significantly lower standardized PASAT score at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese (P trend = .042 in age- and sex-adjusted analysis; P-trend = .056 in full multivariable analysis). “Actually, smokers had an up to 0.6-standard deviation-lower PASAT score at year 11 when we looked at heavy smokers. ...This difference corresponds to about 5 points of the PASAT, so I would say [the score is] clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Cortese pointed out that early smoking, again, showed a dose-response relationship with later cognitive status. “It continues to be important to encourage smoking cessation for patients.”

Epstein-Barr antibodies were not associated with cognitive function at year 11, according to the analysis (P-trend = .93).

“The findings of neuroaxonal injury at year 11 using serum neurofilament light-chain measures corroborated the main findings on cognitive function at year 11,” said Dr. Cortese.

For a 50-nmol higher vitamin D level within the first 5 years, neurofilament light chain levels at year 11 were 20% lower, said Dr. Cortese. Conversely, patients who had cotinine levels higher than 25 ng/mL during the first 5 years had neurofilament light chain levels 20% higher than other participants: “So they did worse. They had more neuroaxonal loss,” said Dr. Cortese. No association was seen between neurofilament light chain levels at year 11 and early EBV status, she said.

Though just cognitive function data from BENEFIT-11 were reported by Dr. Cortese, she said that radiologic and other clinical data are also being studied and will be reported in the future.

Dr. Cortese reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Several coauthors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, with clinical support from Bayer HealthCare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cortese M et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Late breaking abstracts session.

*Correction, 10/25/18: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the relationship between vitamin D scores during the first 2 years and PASAT scores at year 11. 

BERLIN – The monoclonal antibody satralizumab reduced by 62% relapses of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) over 24 weeks, as compared with placebo.

Michelle Sullivan/Mdedge News

Chugai Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Yamamura has served as a consultant for the company and reported financial ties with numerous other drug manufacturers.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yamamura T et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Oral abstract 323

BERLIN – The monoclonal antibody satralizumab reduced by 62% relapses of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) over 24 weeks, as compared with placebo.

Michelle Sullivan/Mdedge News

Chugai Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Yamamura has served as a consultant for the company and reported financial ties with numerous other drug manufacturers.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yamamura T et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Oral abstract 323

BERLIN – The monoclonal antibody satralizumab reduced by 62% relapses of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) over 24 weeks, as compared with placebo.

Michelle Sullivan/Mdedge News

Chugai Pharmaceuticals sponsored the study. Dr. Yamamura has served as a consultant for the company and reported financial ties with numerous other drug manufacturers.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yamamura T et al. ECTRIMS 2018, Oral abstract 323

Infants with bacteremia caused by group B streptococcus (GBS) who were treated with intravenous antimicrobial therapy for 8 days or less had similarly successful outcomes, compared with those treated longer, based on data from 775 infants.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

Current guidelines recommend intravenous antibiotics for a prolonged period of 10 days for infants (defined as 7-90 days old) with uncomplicated, late-onset GBS bacteremia, “however, no studies have compared outcomes among infants who receive prolonged versus shortened durations of IV antibiotic therapy,” wrote Eric R. Coon, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues. In a retrospective study published in Pediatrics, the researchers compared recurrence rates in infants who received prolonged vs. shortened therapy.

The study population included 612 infants with uncomplicated late-onset GBS bacteremia aged 4 months and younger who received prolonged IV therapy and 163 who received shortened therapy (defined as 8 days or less). Demographics were not significantly different between the groups, although infants who received a shortened treatment were more likely to be older, were more often admitted in later years of the study, and more likely to have a concomitant urinary tract infection.

Overall, 17 infants experienced recurrence; 3 in the shortened therapy group (1.8%) and 14 in the prolonged therapy group (2.3%). The average time to recurrence was 25 days.

Of note, 27 infants in the shortened treatment group received oral antibiotics on the day of their hospital discharge, and none of them experienced GBS recurrence, which suggests that “Early transition to oral antibiotic therapy may be appropriate for carefully selected infants with GBS bacteremia,” the researchers wrote.

In the prolonged treatment group, recurrence rates were 4.0% and 1.5%, respectively, for infants discharged with and without a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), but complications from the catheter may have been misclassified as disease recurrence to cause the difference in rate, as the noncatheter patients had similar recurrence rates to the shortened treatment group, the researchers noted.

“We found striking variation in IV antibiotic treatment duration by hospital and whether patients received prolonged or shortened IV courses; rates of GBS disease recurrence and treatment failure were low,” the researchers said. The top three antibiotics prescribed were ampicillin plus a third-generation cephalosporin (37%), third-generation cephalosporin monotherapy (28%), and third-generation cephalosporin monotherapy plus vancomycin (7%).

The findings were limited by the observational design, potential for misclassification of outcomes, and a lack of data to address the total duration of antibiotic therapy, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that shorter treatment can be an informed decision considered in appropriate patients.

“Beyond decreased health care costs, shortened IV antibiotic courses provide the advantage of a diminished burden for families, allowing for patients to leave the hospital sooner, making it easier to administer the antibiotic at home, and decreasing the likelihood that they would develop a treatment-related complication,” the researchers said. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Coon E et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0131.

Infants with bacteremia caused by group B streptococcus (GBS) who were treated with intravenous antimicrobial therapy for 8 days or less had similarly successful outcomes, compared with those treated longer, based on data from 775 infants.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

Current guidelines recommend intravenous antibiotics for a prolonged period of 10 days for infants (defined as 7-90 days old) with uncomplicated, late-onset GBS bacteremia, “however, no studies have compared outcomes among infants who receive prolonged versus shortened durations of IV antibiotic therapy,” wrote Eric R. Coon, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues. In a retrospective study published in Pediatrics, the researchers compared recurrence rates in infants who received prolonged vs. shortened therapy.

The study population included 612 infants with uncomplicated late-onset GBS bacteremia aged 4 months and younger who received prolonged IV therapy and 163 who received shortened therapy (defined as 8 days or less). Demographics were not significantly different between the groups, although infants who received a shortened treatment were more likely to be older, were more often admitted in later years of the study, and more likely to have a concomitant urinary tract infection.

Overall, 17 infants experienced recurrence; 3 in the shortened therapy group (1.8%) and 14 in the prolonged therapy group (2.3%). The average time to recurrence was 25 days.

Of note, 27 infants in the shortened treatment group received oral antibiotics on the day of their hospital discharge, and none of them experienced GBS recurrence, which suggests that “Early transition to oral antibiotic therapy may be appropriate for carefully selected infants with GBS bacteremia,” the researchers wrote.

In the prolonged treatment group, recurrence rates were 4.0% and 1.5%, respectively, for infants discharged with and without a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), but complications from the catheter may have been misclassified as disease recurrence to cause the difference in rate, as the noncatheter patients had similar recurrence rates to the shortened treatment group, the researchers noted.

“We found striking variation in IV antibiotic treatment duration by hospital and whether patients received prolonged or shortened IV courses; rates of GBS disease recurrence and treatment failure were low,” the researchers said. The top three antibiotics prescribed were ampicillin plus a third-generation cephalosporin (37%), third-generation cephalosporin monotherapy (28%), and third-generation cephalosporin monotherapy plus vancomycin (7%).

The findings were limited by the observational design, potential for misclassification of outcomes, and a lack of data to address the total duration of antibiotic therapy, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that shorter treatment can be an informed decision considered in appropriate patients.

“Beyond decreased health care costs, shortened IV antibiotic courses provide the advantage of a diminished burden for families, allowing for patients to leave the hospital sooner, making it easier to administer the antibiotic at home, and decreasing the likelihood that they would develop a treatment-related complication,” the researchers said. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Coon E et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0131.

Infants with bacteremia caused by group B streptococcus (GBS) who were treated with intravenous antimicrobial therapy for 8 days or less had similarly successful outcomes, compared with those treated longer, based on data from 775 infants.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

Current guidelines recommend intravenous antibiotics for a prolonged period of 10 days for infants (defined as 7-90 days old) with uncomplicated, late-onset GBS bacteremia, “however, no studies have compared outcomes among infants who receive prolonged versus shortened durations of IV antibiotic therapy,” wrote Eric R. Coon, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues. In a retrospective study published in Pediatrics, the researchers compared recurrence rates in infants who received prolonged vs. shortened therapy.

The study population included 612 infants with uncomplicated late-onset GBS bacteremia aged 4 months and younger who received prolonged IV therapy and 163 who received shortened therapy (defined as 8 days or less). Demographics were not significantly different between the groups, although infants who received a shortened treatment were more likely to be older, were more often admitted in later years of the study, and more likely to have a concomitant urinary tract infection.

Overall, 17 infants experienced recurrence; 3 in the shortened therapy group (1.8%) and 14 in the prolonged therapy group (2.3%). The average time to recurrence was 25 days.

Of note, 27 infants in the shortened treatment group received oral antibiotics on the day of their hospital discharge, and none of them experienced GBS recurrence, which suggests that “Early transition to oral antibiotic therapy may be appropriate for carefully selected infants with GBS bacteremia,” the researchers wrote.

In the prolonged treatment group, recurrence rates were 4.0% and 1.5%, respectively, for infants discharged with and without a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), but complications from the catheter may have been misclassified as disease recurrence to cause the difference in rate, as the noncatheter patients had similar recurrence rates to the shortened treatment group, the researchers noted.

“We found striking variation in IV antibiotic treatment duration by hospital and whether patients received prolonged or shortened IV courses; rates of GBS disease recurrence and treatment failure were low,” the researchers said. The top three antibiotics prescribed were ampicillin plus a third-generation cephalosporin (37%), third-generation cephalosporin monotherapy (28%), and third-generation cephalosporin monotherapy plus vancomycin (7%).

The findings were limited by the observational design, potential for misclassification of outcomes, and a lack of data to address the total duration of antibiotic therapy, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that shorter treatment can be an informed decision considered in appropriate patients.

“Beyond decreased health care costs, shortened IV antibiotic courses provide the advantage of a diminished burden for families, allowing for patients to leave the hospital sooner, making it easier to administer the antibiotic at home, and decreasing the likelihood that they would develop a treatment-related complication,” the researchers said. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Coon E et al. Pediatrics. 2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-0131.

BERLIN – Neurofilament light chain (Nf-L) levels are higher in the plasma of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) than primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) irrespective of age, according to an analysis of blood samples from two large phase 3 trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

SOURCE: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.

BERLIN – Neurofilament light chain (Nf-L) levels are higher in the plasma of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) than primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) irrespective of age, according to an analysis of blood samples from two large phase 3 trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

SOURCE: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.

BERLIN – Neurofilament light chain (Nf-L) levels are higher in the plasma of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) than primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) irrespective of age, according to an analysis of blood samples from two large phase 3 trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

SOURCE: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.