Diabetes

Updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology advise against prescribing opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy – but note that several other oral and topical therapies may help ease pain.

Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.

“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Multiple options

To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.

The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.

Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.

The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.

All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.

In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.

When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
 

Pain reduction, not elimination

Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.

For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.

“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”

Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.

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

Updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology advise against prescribing opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy – but note that several other oral and topical therapies may help ease pain.

Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.

“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Multiple options

To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.

The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.

Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.

The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.

All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.

In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.

When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
 

Pain reduction, not elimination

Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.

For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.

“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”

Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.

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

Updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology advise against prescribing opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy – but note that several other oral and topical therapies may help ease pain.

Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.

“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Multiple options

To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.

The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.

Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.

The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.

All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.

In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.

When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
 

Pain reduction, not elimination

Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.

For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.

“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”

Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.

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

Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are effective at improving hepatic steatosis in type 2 diabetes patients, according to a new analysis of a randomized, controlled trial.

Both procedures resulted in near elimination of liver fat 1 year after the surgery, but the effect on liver fibrosis was less clear. The authors called for more research to examine longer-term effects on fibrosis.

Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are effective at improving hepatic steatosis in type 2 diabetes patients, according to a new analysis of a randomized, controlled trial.

Both procedures resulted in near elimination of liver fat 1 year after the surgery, but the effect on liver fibrosis was less clear. The authors called for more research to examine longer-term effects on fibrosis.

Both Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are effective at improving hepatic steatosis in type 2 diabetes patients, according to a new analysis of a randomized, controlled trial.

Both procedures resulted in near elimination of liver fat 1 year after the surgery, but the effect on liver fibrosis was less clear. The authors called for more research to examine longer-term effects on fibrosis.

The drumbeat of U.S. recalls continues for various lots of extended-release metformin because of contamination with unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine that pose a cancer risk.

On Dec. 28, 2021, Viona Pharmaceuticals voluntarily recalled 33 lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, USP 750 mg to the retail level, as a precautionary measure, because of possible contamination with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

Metformin is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients who have received impacted lots of metformin are advised to continue taking their medication and contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment

The product can be identified as white to off-white, capsule shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z,” “C” on one side and “20” on the other side, and come in bottles of 100 tablets, which have been distributed nationwide. The 33 batch numbers are listed in a company statement.

The affected product was manufactured by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, for U.S. distribution by Viona.

In its statement, Viona said: “NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests. NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables.”

This recall is being conducted “with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” it added.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact the recall processor Eversana Life Science Services by phone at 1-888-304-5022, option 1; Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. CT. Customers with medical-related questions who wish to report an adverse event or quality issues about the products being recalled should contact Viona Pharmaceuticals by phone at 888-304-5011, Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m., EST.
 

Latest in a long line of metformin recalls

This is the second time in 2021 that Viona has voluntarily recalled extended-release metformin tablets, 750 mg, because of potential contamination with NDMA. It recalled two lots in June, as reported by this news organization.

And in January 2021, Nostrum Laboratories recalled another lot of metformin extended-release 750-mg tablets, following on from a prior recall in November 2020.

These recalls follows 258 distinct U.S. lot recalls tracked by the FDA during the past 2 years because of unacceptably high NDMA levels in lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets.

The FDA has issued several statements about NDMA contamination of metformin formulations over the past 2 years, including a review of the methods used to detect NDMA and a summary of the information the agency had collected on excessive levels of NDMA in metformin.

According to the FDA’s 2020 summary, the agency has not yet determined how or why high levels of NDMA turn up so often in multiple batches of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. However, published research attributed the contamination to certain methods of manufacturing metformin tablets.

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

The drumbeat of U.S. recalls continues for various lots of extended-release metformin because of contamination with unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine that pose a cancer risk.

On Dec. 28, 2021, Viona Pharmaceuticals voluntarily recalled 33 lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, USP 750 mg to the retail level, as a precautionary measure, because of possible contamination with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

Metformin is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients who have received impacted lots of metformin are advised to continue taking their medication and contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment

The product can be identified as white to off-white, capsule shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z,” “C” on one side and “20” on the other side, and come in bottles of 100 tablets, which have been distributed nationwide. The 33 batch numbers are listed in a company statement.

The affected product was manufactured by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, for U.S. distribution by Viona.

In its statement, Viona said: “NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests. NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables.”

This recall is being conducted “with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” it added.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact the recall processor Eversana Life Science Services by phone at 1-888-304-5022, option 1; Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. CT. Customers with medical-related questions who wish to report an adverse event or quality issues about the products being recalled should contact Viona Pharmaceuticals by phone at 888-304-5011, Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m., EST.
 

Latest in a long line of metformin recalls

This is the second time in 2021 that Viona has voluntarily recalled extended-release metformin tablets, 750 mg, because of potential contamination with NDMA. It recalled two lots in June, as reported by this news organization.

And in January 2021, Nostrum Laboratories recalled another lot of metformin extended-release 750-mg tablets, following on from a prior recall in November 2020.

These recalls follows 258 distinct U.S. lot recalls tracked by the FDA during the past 2 years because of unacceptably high NDMA levels in lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets.

The FDA has issued several statements about NDMA contamination of metformin formulations over the past 2 years, including a review of the methods used to detect NDMA and a summary of the information the agency had collected on excessive levels of NDMA in metformin.

According to the FDA’s 2020 summary, the agency has not yet determined how or why high levels of NDMA turn up so often in multiple batches of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. However, published research attributed the contamination to certain methods of manufacturing metformin tablets.

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

The drumbeat of U.S. recalls continues for various lots of extended-release metformin because of contamination with unacceptably high levels of a nitrosamine that pose a cancer risk.

On Dec. 28, 2021, Viona Pharmaceuticals voluntarily recalled 33 lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets, USP 750 mg to the retail level, as a precautionary measure, because of possible contamination with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

Metformin is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients who have received impacted lots of metformin are advised to continue taking their medication and contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment

The product can be identified as white to off-white, capsule shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z,” “C” on one side and “20” on the other side, and come in bottles of 100 tablets, which have been distributed nationwide. The 33 batch numbers are listed in a company statement.

The affected product was manufactured by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, for U.S. distribution by Viona.

In its statement, Viona said: “NDMA is classified as a probable human carcinogen (a substance that could cause cancer) based on results from laboratory tests. NDMA is a known environmental contaminant and found in water and foods, including meats, dairy products, and vegetables.”

This recall is being conducted “with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” it added.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact the recall processor Eversana Life Science Services by phone at 1-888-304-5022, option 1; Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. CT. Customers with medical-related questions who wish to report an adverse event or quality issues about the products being recalled should contact Viona Pharmaceuticals by phone at 888-304-5011, Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m.–5:30 p.m., EST.
 

Latest in a long line of metformin recalls

This is the second time in 2021 that Viona has voluntarily recalled extended-release metformin tablets, 750 mg, because of potential contamination with NDMA. It recalled two lots in June, as reported by this news organization.

And in January 2021, Nostrum Laboratories recalled another lot of metformin extended-release 750-mg tablets, following on from a prior recall in November 2020.

These recalls follows 258 distinct U.S. lot recalls tracked by the FDA during the past 2 years because of unacceptably high NDMA levels in lots of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets.

The FDA has issued several statements about NDMA contamination of metformin formulations over the past 2 years, including a review of the methods used to detect NDMA and a summary of the information the agency had collected on excessive levels of NDMA in metformin.

According to the FDA’s 2020 summary, the agency has not yet determined how or why high levels of NDMA turn up so often in multiple batches of metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. However, published research attributed the contamination to certain methods of manufacturing metformin tablets.

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

The American Diabetes Association’s updated clinical recommendations for 2022 call for wider population screening, along with furthering the trends toward individualization of care use of diabetes technology.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

The summary of changes from 2021 spans four pages. “Diabetes is a really dynamic field so there is a lot to update which is good. It means progress,” ADA chief science and medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

The ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 was published Dec. 20, 2021, online as a supplement to Diabetes Care.
 

Screening widened by age, in pregnancy, and for type 1 diabetes

One dramatic change is a drop in age to begin screening all people for prediabetes and diabetes from 45 years to 35 years, regardless of risk factors such as obesity.

“Sadly, there are increasing numbers of people with diabetes and developing diabetes younger,” Dr. Gabbay said.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force dropped its recommended age of diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years for people with overweight or obesity, but not universally, as ADA now has.

The ADA made its recommendation independently, Dr. Gabbay noted.

The recommendation for testing pregnant women early in gestation (<15 weeks) for preexisting diabetes was also expanded, from just those with risk factors to consideration of testing all women for undiagnosed diabetes at the time they’re planning pregnancy, and if not then, at the first prenatal visit. Screening for gestational diabetes is then performed at 24-28 weeks.

Again, this is caused by increasing diabetes onset at younger ages, Dr. Gabbay said. “We’re well aware that the number of women who have diabetes and don’t know it and become pregnant is significant and therefore screening early on is important.”

New guidance regarding autoantibody screening in adults suspected of having type 1 diabetes and genetic testing for those who don’t fit typical criteria for either of the two main types are based on the ADA/European Association for the Study of Diabetes joint consensus statement on type 1 diabetes in adults.
 

Individualization of care based on comorbidities, other factors

The concept of individualization of care in diabetes has been emphasized for several years now, but continues to be enhanced with new data and newly available management tools.

Regarding management of type 2 diabetes, several charts have been included to help guide decision-making.

One lists drug-specific and patient factors, including comorbidities, to consider when selecting glucose-lowering medications. A new table depicts a building with four “pillars,” for complication risk reduction, including management of blood pressure, lipids, and glucose, as well as use of agents with cardiovascular and kidney benefit.

“On the type 2 side, the choice of therapy is really guided by several factors. We lay them out in a nice diagram. ... A lot of useful information there compares classes of drugs in order to help clinicians make decisions on what would be the appropriate therapy for a given individual,” Dr. Gabbay said.

An algorithm for pharmacologic treatment includes considerations of weight, hypoglycemia, and cost. Tables are also provided listing average wholesale prices of insulins and noninsulin medications.

A section now entitled “Obesity and weight management for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes” has added content regarding the importance of addressing obesity in diabetes, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the addition of semaglutide as an approved obesity treatment.

“What we hope is that this engenders a shared decision-making process with the patient to identify what the goals are and then choose the appropriate therapy for those goals,” Dr. Gabbay said.

New information has also been added about management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. “I think that’s one of the unrecognized and unaddressed complications of diabetes that we’ll see in the future, particularly as new therapies come out,” Dr. Gabbay predicted.

The section on cardiovascular disease and risk management, endorsed for the fourth year in a row by the American College of Cardiology, includes several new recommendations, including diagnosis of hypertension at a single visit if blood pressure is 180/110 mm Hg or greater, and individualization of blood pressure targets.

Chronic kidney disease management has now been separated from other microvascular complications into a standalone section, with several new updates. Retinopathy, neuropathy, and foot care remain combined in one section.
 

Diabetes technology: Rapidly evolving, access an issue

The new technology section “doubles down on the time in [normal glucose] range (TIR) concept,” but also emphasizes the importance of time below range.

“When we see that, we need to make a therapeutic change. We were concerned that as there’s more and more information and numbers, users might not pick up on what’s important,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

The new standards also provides greater affirmation of the value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes at any age, with individualized choice of devices.

Access to technology is a “big issue, and something the ADA has really been fighting for, particularly in terms of health disparities,” Dr. Gabbay said, noting that ADA has a new Health Equity Now platform, which includes a “bill of rights” calling for all patients with diabetes to have access to state-of-the-art technologies, including CGM.

Overall, he said, “I think the big picture is diabetes continues to evolve and advance. After careful review of the literature, the standards of care identifies at least four big areas where there are some changes that clinicians need to know about: screening, how to individualize treatment, considerations of comorbidities, and the important role that technology plays.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA.

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

The American Diabetes Association’s updated clinical recommendations for 2022 call for wider population screening, along with furthering the trends toward individualization of care use of diabetes technology.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

The summary of changes from 2021 spans four pages. “Diabetes is a really dynamic field so there is a lot to update which is good. It means progress,” ADA chief science and medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

The ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 was published Dec. 20, 2021, online as a supplement to Diabetes Care.
 

Screening widened by age, in pregnancy, and for type 1 diabetes

One dramatic change is a drop in age to begin screening all people for prediabetes and diabetes from 45 years to 35 years, regardless of risk factors such as obesity.

“Sadly, there are increasing numbers of people with diabetes and developing diabetes younger,” Dr. Gabbay said.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force dropped its recommended age of diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years for people with overweight or obesity, but not universally, as ADA now has.

The ADA made its recommendation independently, Dr. Gabbay noted.

The recommendation for testing pregnant women early in gestation (<15 weeks) for preexisting diabetes was also expanded, from just those with risk factors to consideration of testing all women for undiagnosed diabetes at the time they’re planning pregnancy, and if not then, at the first prenatal visit. Screening for gestational diabetes is then performed at 24-28 weeks.

Again, this is caused by increasing diabetes onset at younger ages, Dr. Gabbay said. “We’re well aware that the number of women who have diabetes and don’t know it and become pregnant is significant and therefore screening early on is important.”

New guidance regarding autoantibody screening in adults suspected of having type 1 diabetes and genetic testing for those who don’t fit typical criteria for either of the two main types are based on the ADA/European Association for the Study of Diabetes joint consensus statement on type 1 diabetes in adults.
 

Individualization of care based on comorbidities, other factors

The concept of individualization of care in diabetes has been emphasized for several years now, but continues to be enhanced with new data and newly available management tools.

Regarding management of type 2 diabetes, several charts have been included to help guide decision-making.

One lists drug-specific and patient factors, including comorbidities, to consider when selecting glucose-lowering medications. A new table depicts a building with four “pillars,” for complication risk reduction, including management of blood pressure, lipids, and glucose, as well as use of agents with cardiovascular and kidney benefit.

“On the type 2 side, the choice of therapy is really guided by several factors. We lay them out in a nice diagram. ... A lot of useful information there compares classes of drugs in order to help clinicians make decisions on what would be the appropriate therapy for a given individual,” Dr. Gabbay said.

An algorithm for pharmacologic treatment includes considerations of weight, hypoglycemia, and cost. Tables are also provided listing average wholesale prices of insulins and noninsulin medications.

A section now entitled “Obesity and weight management for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes” has added content regarding the importance of addressing obesity in diabetes, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the addition of semaglutide as an approved obesity treatment.

“What we hope is that this engenders a shared decision-making process with the patient to identify what the goals are and then choose the appropriate therapy for those goals,” Dr. Gabbay said.

New information has also been added about management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. “I think that’s one of the unrecognized and unaddressed complications of diabetes that we’ll see in the future, particularly as new therapies come out,” Dr. Gabbay predicted.

The section on cardiovascular disease and risk management, endorsed for the fourth year in a row by the American College of Cardiology, includes several new recommendations, including diagnosis of hypertension at a single visit if blood pressure is 180/110 mm Hg or greater, and individualization of blood pressure targets.

Chronic kidney disease management has now been separated from other microvascular complications into a standalone section, with several new updates. Retinopathy, neuropathy, and foot care remain combined in one section.
 

Diabetes technology: Rapidly evolving, access an issue

The new technology section “doubles down on the time in [normal glucose] range (TIR) concept,” but also emphasizes the importance of time below range.

“When we see that, we need to make a therapeutic change. We were concerned that as there’s more and more information and numbers, users might not pick up on what’s important,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

The new standards also provides greater affirmation of the value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes at any age, with individualized choice of devices.

Access to technology is a “big issue, and something the ADA has really been fighting for, particularly in terms of health disparities,” Dr. Gabbay said, noting that ADA has a new Health Equity Now platform, which includes a “bill of rights” calling for all patients with diabetes to have access to state-of-the-art technologies, including CGM.

Overall, he said, “I think the big picture is diabetes continues to evolve and advance. After careful review of the literature, the standards of care identifies at least four big areas where there are some changes that clinicians need to know about: screening, how to individualize treatment, considerations of comorbidities, and the important role that technology plays.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA.

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

The American Diabetes Association’s updated clinical recommendations for 2022 call for wider population screening, along with furthering the trends toward individualization of care use of diabetes technology.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

The summary of changes from 2021 spans four pages. “Diabetes is a really dynamic field so there is a lot to update which is good. It means progress,” ADA chief science and medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

The ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022 was published Dec. 20, 2021, online as a supplement to Diabetes Care.
 

Screening widened by age, in pregnancy, and for type 1 diabetes

One dramatic change is a drop in age to begin screening all people for prediabetes and diabetes from 45 years to 35 years, regardless of risk factors such as obesity.

“Sadly, there are increasing numbers of people with diabetes and developing diabetes younger,” Dr. Gabbay said.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force dropped its recommended age of diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years for people with overweight or obesity, but not universally, as ADA now has.

The ADA made its recommendation independently, Dr. Gabbay noted.

The recommendation for testing pregnant women early in gestation (<15 weeks) for preexisting diabetes was also expanded, from just those with risk factors to consideration of testing all women for undiagnosed diabetes at the time they’re planning pregnancy, and if not then, at the first prenatal visit. Screening for gestational diabetes is then performed at 24-28 weeks.

Again, this is caused by increasing diabetes onset at younger ages, Dr. Gabbay said. “We’re well aware that the number of women who have diabetes and don’t know it and become pregnant is significant and therefore screening early on is important.”

New guidance regarding autoantibody screening in adults suspected of having type 1 diabetes and genetic testing for those who don’t fit typical criteria for either of the two main types are based on the ADA/European Association for the Study of Diabetes joint consensus statement on type 1 diabetes in adults.
 

Individualization of care based on comorbidities, other factors

The concept of individualization of care in diabetes has been emphasized for several years now, but continues to be enhanced with new data and newly available management tools.

Regarding management of type 2 diabetes, several charts have been included to help guide decision-making.

One lists drug-specific and patient factors, including comorbidities, to consider when selecting glucose-lowering medications. A new table depicts a building with four “pillars,” for complication risk reduction, including management of blood pressure, lipids, and glucose, as well as use of agents with cardiovascular and kidney benefit.

“On the type 2 side, the choice of therapy is really guided by several factors. We lay them out in a nice diagram. ... A lot of useful information there compares classes of drugs in order to help clinicians make decisions on what would be the appropriate therapy for a given individual,” Dr. Gabbay said.

An algorithm for pharmacologic treatment includes considerations of weight, hypoglycemia, and cost. Tables are also provided listing average wholesale prices of insulins and noninsulin medications.

A section now entitled “Obesity and weight management for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes” has added content regarding the importance of addressing obesity in diabetes, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the addition of semaglutide as an approved obesity treatment.

“What we hope is that this engenders a shared decision-making process with the patient to identify what the goals are and then choose the appropriate therapy for those goals,” Dr. Gabbay said.

New information has also been added about management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. “I think that’s one of the unrecognized and unaddressed complications of diabetes that we’ll see in the future, particularly as new therapies come out,” Dr. Gabbay predicted.

The section on cardiovascular disease and risk management, endorsed for the fourth year in a row by the American College of Cardiology, includes several new recommendations, including diagnosis of hypertension at a single visit if blood pressure is 180/110 mm Hg or greater, and individualization of blood pressure targets.

Chronic kidney disease management has now been separated from other microvascular complications into a standalone section, with several new updates. Retinopathy, neuropathy, and foot care remain combined in one section.
 

Diabetes technology: Rapidly evolving, access an issue

The new technology section “doubles down on the time in [normal glucose] range (TIR) concept,” but also emphasizes the importance of time below range.

“When we see that, we need to make a therapeutic change. We were concerned that as there’s more and more information and numbers, users might not pick up on what’s important,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

The new standards also provides greater affirmation of the value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes at any age, with individualized choice of devices.

Access to technology is a “big issue, and something the ADA has really been fighting for, particularly in terms of health disparities,” Dr. Gabbay said, noting that ADA has a new Health Equity Now platform, which includes a “bill of rights” calling for all patients with diabetes to have access to state-of-the-art technologies, including CGM.

Overall, he said, “I think the big picture is diabetes continues to evolve and advance. After careful review of the literature, the standards of care identifies at least four big areas where there are some changes that clinicians need to know about: screening, how to individualize treatment, considerations of comorbidities, and the important role that technology plays.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA.

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

A hitherto unknown hormonal complex that regulates extracellular energy production in pancreatic islet (beta) cells could be a novel target to not only treat both type 1 and type 2 diabetes but also potentially to prevent their development in the first place, suggests basic science research led by U.S. investigators.

Fatty acid–binding protein 4 (FABP4), a recently identified hormone, was known to be elevated in type 2 diabetes, but the researchers now show that it is not only increased in type 1 diabetes but also that those increases predate its development.

They also show that antibodies against the hormone in mice models prevent type 1 diabetes and improve glycemic control in type 2 disease.

Moreover, it forms a complex with two other proteins that the researchers termed “Fabkin.”

The research, published in Nature, indicates that increased levels of the complex blunts beta cell function, while antibody treatment improves beta cell function.

“For many decades, we have been searching for the signal that communicates the status of energy reserves in adipocytes (fat cells) to generate appropriate endocrine responses, such as the insulin production from pancreatic beta cells,” said senior author Gökhan S. Hotamisligil, MD, PhD, in a press release. “We now have identified Fabkin as a novel hormone that controls this critical function through a very unusual molecular mechanism.”
 

Still a long way to go

Dr. Hotamisligil, who is director of the Sabri Ülker Center for Metabolic Research at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, explained in an interview that taking the findings to the clinic entails answering a number of questions.

“That will keep us busy for a long time, and there are also translational questions, which are extremely exciting,” but the team is very “optimistic” that the findings will transfer well into humans, he said.

One reason is that, in mice and humans with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, “we see exactly the same pattern of regulation” of Fabkin levels and that, “equally importantly,” sustained high levels of the hormone “correlate with poor diabetes control” in type 1 diabetes and disease severity in type 2 disease.

“This is the first strong indication that it will translate well, and the second is that, if we take human islets ... and then apply this hormone into those islets, we see the same suppression of insulin secretion and viability that we see in mice islets,” Dr. Hotamisligil said.

Moreover, blocking the hormone prevents the “negative effects” that we see on the islets, which is a “really critical” factor in suggesting that Fabkin could be a viable treatment target in humans, Dr. Hotamisligil explained.

He continued that, encouragingly, “nature has done some experiments in humans” with Fabkin, showing that “you can have a safe and healthy life with a mutation in the components of this complex ... that reduces levels of the hormone.

“These individuals have a greatly reduced risk for both diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” he said, “so this tells us that, if we can establish a safe agent that can be used in humans, this will be well tolerated for life, and it will have beneficial effects.”

Lastly, Dr. Hotamisligil said that such an agent already exists, “so it’s really just a matter of making it suitable for human use and taking it through the testing procedures.”

He cautioned, however, that “these are important pillars” for translational research “that we rarely, if ever, find in many of our projects,” and there is still a long way to go.
 

Study details: FABP4 levels associated with glycemic control

The team said the research was “inspired” by previous studies showing that FABP4 knockout mice had higher beta-cell mass in the pancreas and significantly increased glucose-stimulated insulin secretion.

While it is “well established” that FABP4 is increased in type 2 diabetes, they initially examined whether levels are also regulated in type 1 diabetes, independently of adiposity and insulin resistance.

Looking at serum samples from normoglycemic individuals and those with new-onset type 1 diabetes in the BABYDIAB and DiMELLI cohorts, they found that FABP4 was increased approximately 1.6-fold in the latter.

In another cohort of older patients with type 1 diabetes of variation durations, serum FABP4 levels were correlated with hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .005), “which suggests that FABP4 is associated with glycemic control.”

Mouse studies indicate that FABP4 levels are increased both shortly before and during new-onset type 1 diabetes, implying that the hormone “may have a role in beta-cell failure and pathogenesis” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Antibody targeting of FABP4 levels in mice also revealed that treatment from 10 weeks of age protected against the development of type 1 diabetes, while antibody-treated mice with diabetes had significantly reduced blood glucose and increased plasma insulin levels versus mice given control antibodies.

This, the team said, “suggests that these mice had a less severe diabetes phenotype” with the protection against type 1 diabetes similar to that seen in FABP4 knockout mice.

Mice with diet-induced obesity and nonobese mice with diabetes treated with anti-FABP4 antibodies had improved glucose tolerance tests and a significant increase in islet number and beta-cell mass versus controls.

Further work enabled the team to identify a complex formed by circulating FABP4, adenosine kinase, and nucleoside diphosphate kinase, which could be targeted by anti-FABP4 antibodies via both FABP4 and NPDK.

“We propose the name Fabkin for this new hormone complex formed by NDPK to indicate its unique constitution of a fatty acid–binding protein and kinases,” the researchers wrote.

The team then found that the Fabkin complex alters calcium homeostasis in the endoplasmic reticulum.

This, “results in [endoplasmic reticulum] dysfunction, increased sensitivity to environmental stress and potentiation of beta-cell death in vitro,” which are mechanisms “critical” to the pathogenesis of both type 1 and 2 diabetes.

Finally, they showed that targeting Fabkin with anti-FABP4 antibodies “preserves beta-cell mass and enhances beta-cell function to protect against diabetes in multiple models.”

Funding for this study came from National Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation grants. The Hotamisligil Lab at the Sabri Ülker Center has generated intellectual property (assigned to Harvard University) related to hormonal FABP4 and its therapeutic targeting and receives funding for this project from Lab1636, an affiliate of Deerfield Management. Dr. Hotamisligil is on the scientific advisory board of Crescenta Pharmaceuticals and holds equity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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

A hitherto unknown hormonal complex that regulates extracellular energy production in pancreatic islet (beta) cells could be a novel target to not only treat both type 1 and type 2 diabetes but also potentially to prevent their development in the first place, suggests basic science research led by U.S. investigators.

Fatty acid–binding protein 4 (FABP4), a recently identified hormone, was known to be elevated in type 2 diabetes, but the researchers now show that it is not only increased in type 1 diabetes but also that those increases predate its development.

They also show that antibodies against the hormone in mice models prevent type 1 diabetes and improve glycemic control in type 2 disease.

Moreover, it forms a complex with two other proteins that the researchers termed “Fabkin.”

The research, published in Nature, indicates that increased levels of the complex blunts beta cell function, while antibody treatment improves beta cell function.

“For many decades, we have been searching for the signal that communicates the status of energy reserves in adipocytes (fat cells) to generate appropriate endocrine responses, such as the insulin production from pancreatic beta cells,” said senior author Gökhan S. Hotamisligil, MD, PhD, in a press release. “We now have identified Fabkin as a novel hormone that controls this critical function through a very unusual molecular mechanism.”
 

Still a long way to go

Dr. Hotamisligil, who is director of the Sabri Ülker Center for Metabolic Research at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, explained in an interview that taking the findings to the clinic entails answering a number of questions.

“That will keep us busy for a long time, and there are also translational questions, which are extremely exciting,” but the team is very “optimistic” that the findings will transfer well into humans, he said.

One reason is that, in mice and humans with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, “we see exactly the same pattern of regulation” of Fabkin levels and that, “equally importantly,” sustained high levels of the hormone “correlate with poor diabetes control” in type 1 diabetes and disease severity in type 2 disease.

“This is the first strong indication that it will translate well, and the second is that, if we take human islets ... and then apply this hormone into those islets, we see the same suppression of insulin secretion and viability that we see in mice islets,” Dr. Hotamisligil said.

Moreover, blocking the hormone prevents the “negative effects” that we see on the islets, which is a “really critical” factor in suggesting that Fabkin could be a viable treatment target in humans, Dr. Hotamisligil explained.

He continued that, encouragingly, “nature has done some experiments in humans” with Fabkin, showing that “you can have a safe and healthy life with a mutation in the components of this complex ... that reduces levels of the hormone.

“These individuals have a greatly reduced risk for both diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” he said, “so this tells us that, if we can establish a safe agent that can be used in humans, this will be well tolerated for life, and it will have beneficial effects.”

Lastly, Dr. Hotamisligil said that such an agent already exists, “so it’s really just a matter of making it suitable for human use and taking it through the testing procedures.”

He cautioned, however, that “these are important pillars” for translational research “that we rarely, if ever, find in many of our projects,” and there is still a long way to go.
 

Study details: FABP4 levels associated with glycemic control

The team said the research was “inspired” by previous studies showing that FABP4 knockout mice had higher beta-cell mass in the pancreas and significantly increased glucose-stimulated insulin secretion.

While it is “well established” that FABP4 is increased in type 2 diabetes, they initially examined whether levels are also regulated in type 1 diabetes, independently of adiposity and insulin resistance.

Looking at serum samples from normoglycemic individuals and those with new-onset type 1 diabetes in the BABYDIAB and DiMELLI cohorts, they found that FABP4 was increased approximately 1.6-fold in the latter.

In another cohort of older patients with type 1 diabetes of variation durations, serum FABP4 levels were correlated with hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .005), “which suggests that FABP4 is associated with glycemic control.”

Mouse studies indicate that FABP4 levels are increased both shortly before and during new-onset type 1 diabetes, implying that the hormone “may have a role in beta-cell failure and pathogenesis” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Antibody targeting of FABP4 levels in mice also revealed that treatment from 10 weeks of age protected against the development of type 1 diabetes, while antibody-treated mice with diabetes had significantly reduced blood glucose and increased plasma insulin levels versus mice given control antibodies.

This, the team said, “suggests that these mice had a less severe diabetes phenotype” with the protection against type 1 diabetes similar to that seen in FABP4 knockout mice.

Mice with diet-induced obesity and nonobese mice with diabetes treated with anti-FABP4 antibodies had improved glucose tolerance tests and a significant increase in islet number and beta-cell mass versus controls.

Further work enabled the team to identify a complex formed by circulating FABP4, adenosine kinase, and nucleoside diphosphate kinase, which could be targeted by anti-FABP4 antibodies via both FABP4 and NPDK.

“We propose the name Fabkin for this new hormone complex formed by NDPK to indicate its unique constitution of a fatty acid–binding protein and kinases,” the researchers wrote.

The team then found that the Fabkin complex alters calcium homeostasis in the endoplasmic reticulum.

This, “results in [endoplasmic reticulum] dysfunction, increased sensitivity to environmental stress and potentiation of beta-cell death in vitro,” which are mechanisms “critical” to the pathogenesis of both type 1 and 2 diabetes.

Finally, they showed that targeting Fabkin with anti-FABP4 antibodies “preserves beta-cell mass and enhances beta-cell function to protect against diabetes in multiple models.”

Funding for this study came from National Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation grants. The Hotamisligil Lab at the Sabri Ülker Center has generated intellectual property (assigned to Harvard University) related to hormonal FABP4 and its therapeutic targeting and receives funding for this project from Lab1636, an affiliate of Deerfield Management. Dr. Hotamisligil is on the scientific advisory board of Crescenta Pharmaceuticals and holds equity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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

A hitherto unknown hormonal complex that regulates extracellular energy production in pancreatic islet (beta) cells could be a novel target to not only treat both type 1 and type 2 diabetes but also potentially to prevent their development in the first place, suggests basic science research led by U.S. investigators.

Fatty acid–binding protein 4 (FABP4), a recently identified hormone, was known to be elevated in type 2 diabetes, but the researchers now show that it is not only increased in type 1 diabetes but also that those increases predate its development.

They also show that antibodies against the hormone in mice models prevent type 1 diabetes and improve glycemic control in type 2 disease.

Moreover, it forms a complex with two other proteins that the researchers termed “Fabkin.”

The research, published in Nature, indicates that increased levels of the complex blunts beta cell function, while antibody treatment improves beta cell function.

“For many decades, we have been searching for the signal that communicates the status of energy reserves in adipocytes (fat cells) to generate appropriate endocrine responses, such as the insulin production from pancreatic beta cells,” said senior author Gökhan S. Hotamisligil, MD, PhD, in a press release. “We now have identified Fabkin as a novel hormone that controls this critical function through a very unusual molecular mechanism.”
 

Still a long way to go

Dr. Hotamisligil, who is director of the Sabri Ülker Center for Metabolic Research at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, explained in an interview that taking the findings to the clinic entails answering a number of questions.

“That will keep us busy for a long time, and there are also translational questions, which are extremely exciting,” but the team is very “optimistic” that the findings will transfer well into humans, he said.

One reason is that, in mice and humans with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, “we see exactly the same pattern of regulation” of Fabkin levels and that, “equally importantly,” sustained high levels of the hormone “correlate with poor diabetes control” in type 1 diabetes and disease severity in type 2 disease.

“This is the first strong indication that it will translate well, and the second is that, if we take human islets ... and then apply this hormone into those islets, we see the same suppression of insulin secretion and viability that we see in mice islets,” Dr. Hotamisligil said.

Moreover, blocking the hormone prevents the “negative effects” that we see on the islets, which is a “really critical” factor in suggesting that Fabkin could be a viable treatment target in humans, Dr. Hotamisligil explained.

He continued that, encouragingly, “nature has done some experiments in humans” with Fabkin, showing that “you can have a safe and healthy life with a mutation in the components of this complex ... that reduces levels of the hormone.

“These individuals have a greatly reduced risk for both diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” he said, “so this tells us that, if we can establish a safe agent that can be used in humans, this will be well tolerated for life, and it will have beneficial effects.”

Lastly, Dr. Hotamisligil said that such an agent already exists, “so it’s really just a matter of making it suitable for human use and taking it through the testing procedures.”

He cautioned, however, that “these are important pillars” for translational research “that we rarely, if ever, find in many of our projects,” and there is still a long way to go.
 

Study details: FABP4 levels associated with glycemic control

The team said the research was “inspired” by previous studies showing that FABP4 knockout mice had higher beta-cell mass in the pancreas and significantly increased glucose-stimulated insulin secretion.

While it is “well established” that FABP4 is increased in type 2 diabetes, they initially examined whether levels are also regulated in type 1 diabetes, independently of adiposity and insulin resistance.

Looking at serum samples from normoglycemic individuals and those with new-onset type 1 diabetes in the BABYDIAB and DiMELLI cohorts, they found that FABP4 was increased approximately 1.6-fold in the latter.

In another cohort of older patients with type 1 diabetes of variation durations, serum FABP4 levels were correlated with hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .005), “which suggests that FABP4 is associated with glycemic control.”

Mouse studies indicate that FABP4 levels are increased both shortly before and during new-onset type 1 diabetes, implying that the hormone “may have a role in beta-cell failure and pathogenesis” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Antibody targeting of FABP4 levels in mice also revealed that treatment from 10 weeks of age protected against the development of type 1 diabetes, while antibody-treated mice with diabetes had significantly reduced blood glucose and increased plasma insulin levels versus mice given control antibodies.

This, the team said, “suggests that these mice had a less severe diabetes phenotype” with the protection against type 1 diabetes similar to that seen in FABP4 knockout mice.

Mice with diet-induced obesity and nonobese mice with diabetes treated with anti-FABP4 antibodies had improved glucose tolerance tests and a significant increase in islet number and beta-cell mass versus controls.

Further work enabled the team to identify a complex formed by circulating FABP4, adenosine kinase, and nucleoside diphosphate kinase, which could be targeted by anti-FABP4 antibodies via both FABP4 and NPDK.

“We propose the name Fabkin for this new hormone complex formed by NDPK to indicate its unique constitution of a fatty acid–binding protein and kinases,” the researchers wrote.

The team then found that the Fabkin complex alters calcium homeostasis in the endoplasmic reticulum.

This, “results in [endoplasmic reticulum] dysfunction, increased sensitivity to environmental stress and potentiation of beta-cell death in vitro,” which are mechanisms “critical” to the pathogenesis of both type 1 and 2 diabetes.

Finally, they showed that targeting Fabkin with anti-FABP4 antibodies “preserves beta-cell mass and enhances beta-cell function to protect against diabetes in multiple models.”

Funding for this study came from National Institutes of Health and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation grants. The Hotamisligil Lab at the Sabri Ülker Center has generated intellectual property (assigned to Harvard University) related to hormonal FABP4 and its therapeutic targeting and receives funding for this project from Lab1636, an affiliate of Deerfield Management. Dr. Hotamisligil is on the scientific advisory board of Crescenta Pharmaceuticals and holds equity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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

Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery and had 10-year durable diabetes remission had a 60% lower risk of incident cancer than patients who had usual obesity care.

And women who had bariatric surgery had a 42% lower risk of having cancer during a median 21-year follow-up, compared with women who had usual obesity care.

These findings from 701 patients in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study who had type 2 diabetes were recently published in Diabetes Care.

The results illustrate the “connection between glucose control and cancer prevention” and suggest that “among patients with type 2 diabetes, many cancer cases are preventable,” lead author Kajsa Sjöholm, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), said in a press release from the university.

“The global epidemic of both obesity and diabetes leads to an increased risk of cancer, as well as an increased risk of premature death,” added senior author Magdalena Taube, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine in the same academy.

“It has been estimated that, over the next 10-15 years, obesity may cause more cancer cases than smoking in several countries,” she noted. Therefore, “strategies are needed to prevent this development, and our results can provide vital guidance for prevention of cancer in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
 

Durable diabetes remission seems key

Two-thirds of the patients in the bariatric surgery group had vertical banded gastroplasty (65%), and the rest had adjustable or nonadjustable gastric banding (18%) or gastric bypass (17%).

Each type of bariatric surgery was associated with higher diabetes remission rates, compared with usual care, in a previous study by these researchers, Dr. Taube said in an interview.

“In our present study,” she added, “we observed a nonsignificant trend, where patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes in the highest weight loss tertile (average weight loss, –44.8 kg) had somewhat lower risk of cancer compared to the lowest tertile [average weight loss, –14.9 kg].”

This might suggest, Dr. Taube continued, that with respect to cancer risk, surgery techniques resulting in greater weight loss (for example, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) should be recommended in patients with obesity and diabetes.

“However, it should also be noted that long-term diabetes remission seems imperative for cancer risk reduction,” she said, “and in a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al., published in JAMA Surgery, it was shown that patients who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had greater weight loss, a slightly higher type 2 diabetes remission rate, less type 2 diabetes relapse, and better long-term glycemic control, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy.

“The observed cancer reduction in women with obesity and type 2 diabetes is in line with previous findings showing that cancer risk reduction following bariatric surgery in patients with obesity is more marked among women than men,” Dr. Taube noted. This may be because cancer rates are higher in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes, and common cancer types associated with obesity are female specific.

The main cancers in women were breast cancer, followed by endometrial and colorectal cancer. In men, the main cancers were colorectal, prostate, and urothelial/malignant skin cancer.
 

Study design and findings

It is well established that obesity is a risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and some of these cancers (liver, pancreatic, endometrial, colon and rectal, breast, and bladder) may be related to type 2 diabetes. And bariatric surgery has been shown to reduce cancer risk in patients with obesity.

However, it is not clear how bariatric surgery may affect cancer risk in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

To study this, the researchers examined data from 393 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 308 patients who received usual obesity treatment, who were part of the SOS study.

The SOS study enrolled men with a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m², and women with a BMI of at least 38 kg/m² who were aged 37-60 years between 1987 and 2001.

The current study outcome – cancer incidence in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes – was not a prespecified outcome

The intervention groups were matched on 18 variables, including age, sex, serum insulin, alcohol, education, and smoking.

At baseline, the patients had a mean age of about 49 and 60% were women. They had a mean BMI of about 42 and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.8%.

On average, patients in the surgery group had lost 27.5 kg and 22.7 kg, and patients in the usual care group had lost 3.2 kg and 4.8 kg, at 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, there were 74 incident cancers in the control group and 68 cancers in the bariatric surgery group.

The risk of cancer during follow-up was 37% lower in the surgery group than in the usual care group, after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.89; P = .008).

A deeper dive showed that there were 86 incident cancers in women and 56 cancers in men. The risk of cancer was significantly lower in women who had bariatric surgery, compared with those who had usual care (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.90, P = .016). However, the risk of cancer was not significantly lower in men who had bariatric surgery versus those who had usual care (aHR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P = .413).

Diabetes remission at 10 years was associated with a 60% reduced cancer incidence (aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, P = .003).

The study was funded by the Swedish state (under an agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils), the Swedish Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Diabetes Foundation. One author received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery and had 10-year durable diabetes remission had a 60% lower risk of incident cancer than patients who had usual obesity care.

And women who had bariatric surgery had a 42% lower risk of having cancer during a median 21-year follow-up, compared with women who had usual obesity care.

These findings from 701 patients in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study who had type 2 diabetes were recently published in Diabetes Care.

The results illustrate the “connection between glucose control and cancer prevention” and suggest that “among patients with type 2 diabetes, many cancer cases are preventable,” lead author Kajsa Sjöholm, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), said in a press release from the university.

“The global epidemic of both obesity and diabetes leads to an increased risk of cancer, as well as an increased risk of premature death,” added senior author Magdalena Taube, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine in the same academy.

“It has been estimated that, over the next 10-15 years, obesity may cause more cancer cases than smoking in several countries,” she noted. Therefore, “strategies are needed to prevent this development, and our results can provide vital guidance for prevention of cancer in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
 

Durable diabetes remission seems key

Two-thirds of the patients in the bariatric surgery group had vertical banded gastroplasty (65%), and the rest had adjustable or nonadjustable gastric banding (18%) or gastric bypass (17%).

Each type of bariatric surgery was associated with higher diabetes remission rates, compared with usual care, in a previous study by these researchers, Dr. Taube said in an interview.

“In our present study,” she added, “we observed a nonsignificant trend, where patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes in the highest weight loss tertile (average weight loss, –44.8 kg) had somewhat lower risk of cancer compared to the lowest tertile [average weight loss, –14.9 kg].”

This might suggest, Dr. Taube continued, that with respect to cancer risk, surgery techniques resulting in greater weight loss (for example, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) should be recommended in patients with obesity and diabetes.

“However, it should also be noted that long-term diabetes remission seems imperative for cancer risk reduction,” she said, “and in a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al., published in JAMA Surgery, it was shown that patients who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had greater weight loss, a slightly higher type 2 diabetes remission rate, less type 2 diabetes relapse, and better long-term glycemic control, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy.

“The observed cancer reduction in women with obesity and type 2 diabetes is in line with previous findings showing that cancer risk reduction following bariatric surgery in patients with obesity is more marked among women than men,” Dr. Taube noted. This may be because cancer rates are higher in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes, and common cancer types associated with obesity are female specific.

The main cancers in women were breast cancer, followed by endometrial and colorectal cancer. In men, the main cancers were colorectal, prostate, and urothelial/malignant skin cancer.
 

Study design and findings

It is well established that obesity is a risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and some of these cancers (liver, pancreatic, endometrial, colon and rectal, breast, and bladder) may be related to type 2 diabetes. And bariatric surgery has been shown to reduce cancer risk in patients with obesity.

However, it is not clear how bariatric surgery may affect cancer risk in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

To study this, the researchers examined data from 393 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 308 patients who received usual obesity treatment, who were part of the SOS study.

The SOS study enrolled men with a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m², and women with a BMI of at least 38 kg/m² who were aged 37-60 years between 1987 and 2001.

The current study outcome – cancer incidence in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes – was not a prespecified outcome

The intervention groups were matched on 18 variables, including age, sex, serum insulin, alcohol, education, and smoking.

At baseline, the patients had a mean age of about 49 and 60% were women. They had a mean BMI of about 42 and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.8%.

On average, patients in the surgery group had lost 27.5 kg and 22.7 kg, and patients in the usual care group had lost 3.2 kg and 4.8 kg, at 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, there were 74 incident cancers in the control group and 68 cancers in the bariatric surgery group.

The risk of cancer during follow-up was 37% lower in the surgery group than in the usual care group, after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.89; P = .008).

A deeper dive showed that there were 86 incident cancers in women and 56 cancers in men. The risk of cancer was significantly lower in women who had bariatric surgery, compared with those who had usual care (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.90, P = .016). However, the risk of cancer was not significantly lower in men who had bariatric surgery versus those who had usual care (aHR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P = .413).

Diabetes remission at 10 years was associated with a 60% reduced cancer incidence (aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, P = .003).

The study was funded by the Swedish state (under an agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils), the Swedish Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Diabetes Foundation. One author received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery and had 10-year durable diabetes remission had a 60% lower risk of incident cancer than patients who had usual obesity care.

And women who had bariatric surgery had a 42% lower risk of having cancer during a median 21-year follow-up, compared with women who had usual obesity care.

These findings from 701 patients in the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study who had type 2 diabetes were recently published in Diabetes Care.

The results illustrate the “connection between glucose control and cancer prevention” and suggest that “among patients with type 2 diabetes, many cancer cases are preventable,” lead author Kajsa Sjöholm, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), said in a press release from the university.

“The global epidemic of both obesity and diabetes leads to an increased risk of cancer, as well as an increased risk of premature death,” added senior author Magdalena Taube, PhD, associate professor of molecular medicine in the same academy.

“It has been estimated that, over the next 10-15 years, obesity may cause more cancer cases than smoking in several countries,” she noted. Therefore, “strategies are needed to prevent this development, and our results can provide vital guidance for prevention of cancer in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
 

Durable diabetes remission seems key

Two-thirds of the patients in the bariatric surgery group had vertical banded gastroplasty (65%), and the rest had adjustable or nonadjustable gastric banding (18%) or gastric bypass (17%).

Each type of bariatric surgery was associated with higher diabetes remission rates, compared with usual care, in a previous study by these researchers, Dr. Taube said in an interview.

“In our present study,” she added, “we observed a nonsignificant trend, where patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes in the highest weight loss tertile (average weight loss, –44.8 kg) had somewhat lower risk of cancer compared to the lowest tertile [average weight loss, –14.9 kg].”

This might suggest, Dr. Taube continued, that with respect to cancer risk, surgery techniques resulting in greater weight loss (for example, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) should be recommended in patients with obesity and diabetes.

“However, it should also be noted that long-term diabetes remission seems imperative for cancer risk reduction,” she said, “and in a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al., published in JAMA Surgery, it was shown that patients who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had greater weight loss, a slightly higher type 2 diabetes remission rate, less type 2 diabetes relapse, and better long-term glycemic control, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy.

“The observed cancer reduction in women with obesity and type 2 diabetes is in line with previous findings showing that cancer risk reduction following bariatric surgery in patients with obesity is more marked among women than men,” Dr. Taube noted. This may be because cancer rates are higher in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes, and common cancer types associated with obesity are female specific.

The main cancers in women were breast cancer, followed by endometrial and colorectal cancer. In men, the main cancers were colorectal, prostate, and urothelial/malignant skin cancer.
 

Study design and findings

It is well established that obesity is a risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and some of these cancers (liver, pancreatic, endometrial, colon and rectal, breast, and bladder) may be related to type 2 diabetes. And bariatric surgery has been shown to reduce cancer risk in patients with obesity.

However, it is not clear how bariatric surgery may affect cancer risk in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

To study this, the researchers examined data from 393 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 308 patients who received usual obesity treatment, who were part of the SOS study.

The SOS study enrolled men with a body mass index of at least 34 kg/m², and women with a BMI of at least 38 kg/m² who were aged 37-60 years between 1987 and 2001.

The current study outcome – cancer incidence in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes – was not a prespecified outcome

The intervention groups were matched on 18 variables, including age, sex, serum insulin, alcohol, education, and smoking.

At baseline, the patients had a mean age of about 49 and 60% were women. They had a mean BMI of about 42 and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.8%.

On average, patients in the surgery group had lost 27.5 kg and 22.7 kg, and patients in the usual care group had lost 3.2 kg and 4.8 kg, at 2 years and 10 years, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, there were 74 incident cancers in the control group and 68 cancers in the bariatric surgery group.

The risk of cancer during follow-up was 37% lower in the surgery group than in the usual care group, after multivariable adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.89; P = .008).

A deeper dive showed that there were 86 incident cancers in women and 56 cancers in men. The risk of cancer was significantly lower in women who had bariatric surgery, compared with those who had usual care (aHR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.38-0.90, P = .016). However, the risk of cancer was not significantly lower in men who had bariatric surgery versus those who had usual care (aHR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.46-1.38; P = .413).

Diabetes remission at 10 years was associated with a 60% reduced cancer incidence (aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, P = .003).

The study was funded by the Swedish state (under an agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils), the Swedish Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Diabetes Foundation. One author received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The other authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

In a shocking, yet low-key, announcement, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Forxiga, AstraZeneca) has been withdrawn from the market in all EU countries for the indication of type 1 diabetes.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

This includes withdrawal in the U.K., which was part of the EU when dapagliflozin was approved for type 1 diabetes in 2019, but following Brexit, is no longer.

AstraZeneca said the decision is not motivated by safety concerns but points nevertheless to an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in those with type 1 diabetes, which it said might cause “confusion” among physicians using the drug to treat numerous other indications for which this agent is now approved.

DKA is a potentially dangerous side effect resulting from acid build-up in the blood and is normally accompanied by very high glucose levels. DKA is flagged as a potential side effect in type 2 diabetes but is more common in those with type 1 diabetes. It can also occur as “euglycemic” DKA, which is ketosis but with relatively normal glucose levels (and therefore harder for patients to detect). Euglycemic DKA is thought to be more of a risk in those with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes.

One charity believes concerns around safety are the underlying factor for the withdrawal of dapagliflozin for type 1 diabetes in Europe, suggesting that AstraZeneca might not want to risk income from more lucrative indications – such as type 2 diabetes with much larger patient populations – because of potential concerns from doctors, who may be deterred from prescribing the drug due to concerns about DKA.

JDRF International, a leading global type 1 diabetes charity, called on AstraZeneca in a statement “to explain to people affected by type 1 diabetes why the drug has been withdrawn.”

It added that dapagliflozin is the “only other drug besides insulin” to be licensed in Europe for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and represents a “major advancement since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago.”

Karen Addington, U.K. Chief Executive of JDRF, said it is “appalling” that the drug has been withdrawn, as “many people with type 1 are finding it an effective and useful tool to help manage their glucose levels.”
 

SGLT2 inhibitors never approved for type 1 diabetes in U.S.

Dapagliflozin and other drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class had already been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes for a number of years when dapagliflozin was approved in early 2019 for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes meeting certain criteria by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which at that time included the U.K. in its remit, based on data from the DEPICT series of phase 3 trials.

SGLT2 inhibitors have also recently shown benefit in other indications, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease – even in the absence of diabetes – leaving some to label them a new class of wonder drugs.

Following the 2019 EU approval for type 1 diabetes, dapagliflozin was subsequently recommended for this use on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and was accompanied by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has now had to be withdrawn.

Of note, dapagliflozin was never approved for use in type 1 diabetes in the United States (where it is known as Farxiga), with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turning it down in July 2019.

An advisory panel for the FDA also later turned down another SGLT2 inhibitor for type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) in Nov. 2019, as reported by this news organization.
 

Discontinuation ‘not due to safety concerns,’ says AZ

The announcement to discontinue dapagliflozin for the indication of type 1 diabetes in certain adults just two and a half years after its approval in the EU comes as a big surprise, especially as it was made with little fanfare just last month.

In the U.K., AstraZeneca sent a letter to health care professionals on Nov. 2 stating that, from Oct. 25, dapagliflozin 5 mg was “no longer authorized” for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and “should no longer be used” in this patient population.

However, it underlined that other indications for dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg were “not affected by this licensing change,” and it remains available for adults with type 2 diabetes, as well as for the management of symptomatic chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

In the letter, sent by Tom Keith-Roach, country president of AstraZeneca UK, the company asserts that the removal of the type 1 diabetes indication from dapagliflozin is “not due to any safety concern” with the drug “in any indication, including type 1 diabetes.”

It nevertheless goes on to highlight that DKA is a known common side effect of dapagliflozin in type 1 diabetes and, following the announcement, “additional risk minimization measures ... will no longer be available.”

In a separate statement, AstraZeneca said that the decision to remove the indication was made “voluntarily” and had been “agreed” with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Great Britain and the equivalent body in Northern Ireland.

“It follows discussions regarding product information changes needed post-approval for dapagliflozin 5 mg specific to type 1 diabetes,” the company said, “which might cause confusion” among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction, or CKD.

AstraZeneca told this news organization that similar communications about the withdrawal were issued to health care agencies and health care professionals in all countries of the EU.
 

‘Appalling, devastating, disappointing’ for patients

The announcement has been met with disappointment in some quarters and outrage in others, and questions have been raised as to the explanation given by AstraZeneca for the drug’s withdrawal.

“Although only a small number of people with type 1 diabetes have been using dapagliflozin, we know that those who have been using it will have been benefitting from tighter control of their condition,” Simon O’Neill, director of health intelligence and professional liaison at Diabetes UK, told this news organization.

“It’s disappointing that these people will now need to go back to the drawing board and will have to work with their clinical team to find other ways of better managing their condition.”

Mr. O’Neill said it was “disappointing that AstraZeneca and the MHRA were unable to find a workable solution to allow people living with type 1 diabetes to continue using the drug safely without leading to confusion for clinicians or people living with type 2 diabetes, who also use it.”

Sanjoy Dutta, JDRF International vice president of research, added that the news is “devastating.”

“The impending negative impact of removing a drug like dapagliflozin from any market can be detrimental in the potential for other national medical ruling boards to have confidence in approving it for their citizens,” he added.

“We stand with our type 1 diabetes communities across the globe in demanding an explanation to clarify this removal.”
 

Why not an educational campaign about DKA risk?

In an interview, Hilary Nathan, policy & communications director at JDRF International, explained that the charity has its theories as to why dapagliflozin has been withdrawn for type 1 diabetes.

What AstraZeneca is saying, “and what we don’t agree with them on,” is that the “black triangle” warning that has to be put onto the drug due to the increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes is “misunderstood by health care practitioners” outside of that specialty and that “by having that black triangle, it will inhibit take-up in those other markets.”

In other words, “there will be less desire to prescribe it,” ventured Ms. Nathan.

She continued: “For us, we feel that if a medicine is deemed safe and efficacious, it should not be withdrawn because of other patient constituencies.”

“We asked: ‘Why can’t you do an educational awareness campaign about the black triangle?’ And the might of AstraZeneca said it would be too big a task.”

Ms. Nathan was also surprised at how the drug could be withdrawn without any warning or real explanation.

“How is it possible that, when a drug is approved there are multiple stakeholders that are involved in putting forward views and experiences – both from the clinical and patient advocacy communities, as well as obviously the pharmaceutical community – yet [a drug] can be withdrawn by a ... company that may well have conflicts of interest around commercial take-up.”

She added: “I feel that there are potentially motives around the withdrawal that AstraZeneca are still not being clear about.”

Perhaps a further clue as to the real motives behind the withdrawal can be found in an announcement, just last week, by the British MHRA.

“The decision by the marketing authorization holder to voluntarily withdraw the indication in type 1 diabetes followed commercial considerations due to a specific European-wide regulatory requirement for this authorization,” it said.

“The decision was not driven by any new safety concerns, such as the already known increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes.”

Separately, a new in-depth investigation into when Johnson & Johnson, which markets another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), first knew that its agent was associated with DKA has revealed multiple discrepancies in staff accounts. Some claim the company knew as early as 2010 that canagliflozin – first approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2013 – could increase the risk of DKA. It was not until May 2015 that the FDA first issued a warning about the potential risk of DKA associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with the EMA following suit a month later. In Dec. 2015, the FDA updated the labels for all SGLT2 inhibitors approved in the United States at that time – canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin – to include the risks for ketoacidosis (and urinary tract infections).

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is manufactured by AstraZeneca. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

In a shocking, yet low-key, announcement, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Forxiga, AstraZeneca) has been withdrawn from the market in all EU countries for the indication of type 1 diabetes.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

This includes withdrawal in the U.K., which was part of the EU when dapagliflozin was approved for type 1 diabetes in 2019, but following Brexit, is no longer.

AstraZeneca said the decision is not motivated by safety concerns but points nevertheless to an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in those with type 1 diabetes, which it said might cause “confusion” among physicians using the drug to treat numerous other indications for which this agent is now approved.

DKA is a potentially dangerous side effect resulting from acid build-up in the blood and is normally accompanied by very high glucose levels. DKA is flagged as a potential side effect in type 2 diabetes but is more common in those with type 1 diabetes. It can also occur as “euglycemic” DKA, which is ketosis but with relatively normal glucose levels (and therefore harder for patients to detect). Euglycemic DKA is thought to be more of a risk in those with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes.

One charity believes concerns around safety are the underlying factor for the withdrawal of dapagliflozin for type 1 diabetes in Europe, suggesting that AstraZeneca might not want to risk income from more lucrative indications – such as type 2 diabetes with much larger patient populations – because of potential concerns from doctors, who may be deterred from prescribing the drug due to concerns about DKA.

JDRF International, a leading global type 1 diabetes charity, called on AstraZeneca in a statement “to explain to people affected by type 1 diabetes why the drug has been withdrawn.”

It added that dapagliflozin is the “only other drug besides insulin” to be licensed in Europe for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and represents a “major advancement since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago.”

Karen Addington, U.K. Chief Executive of JDRF, said it is “appalling” that the drug has been withdrawn, as “many people with type 1 are finding it an effective and useful tool to help manage their glucose levels.”
 

SGLT2 inhibitors never approved for type 1 diabetes in U.S.

Dapagliflozin and other drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class had already been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes for a number of years when dapagliflozin was approved in early 2019 for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes meeting certain criteria by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which at that time included the U.K. in its remit, based on data from the DEPICT series of phase 3 trials.

SGLT2 inhibitors have also recently shown benefit in other indications, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease – even in the absence of diabetes – leaving some to label them a new class of wonder drugs.

Following the 2019 EU approval for type 1 diabetes, dapagliflozin was subsequently recommended for this use on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and was accompanied by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has now had to be withdrawn.

Of note, dapagliflozin was never approved for use in type 1 diabetes in the United States (where it is known as Farxiga), with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turning it down in July 2019.

An advisory panel for the FDA also later turned down another SGLT2 inhibitor for type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) in Nov. 2019, as reported by this news organization.
 

Discontinuation ‘not due to safety concerns,’ says AZ

The announcement to discontinue dapagliflozin for the indication of type 1 diabetes in certain adults just two and a half years after its approval in the EU comes as a big surprise, especially as it was made with little fanfare just last month.

In the U.K., AstraZeneca sent a letter to health care professionals on Nov. 2 stating that, from Oct. 25, dapagliflozin 5 mg was “no longer authorized” for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and “should no longer be used” in this patient population.

However, it underlined that other indications for dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg were “not affected by this licensing change,” and it remains available for adults with type 2 diabetes, as well as for the management of symptomatic chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

In the letter, sent by Tom Keith-Roach, country president of AstraZeneca UK, the company asserts that the removal of the type 1 diabetes indication from dapagliflozin is “not due to any safety concern” with the drug “in any indication, including type 1 diabetes.”

It nevertheless goes on to highlight that DKA is a known common side effect of dapagliflozin in type 1 diabetes and, following the announcement, “additional risk minimization measures ... will no longer be available.”

In a separate statement, AstraZeneca said that the decision to remove the indication was made “voluntarily” and had been “agreed” with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Great Britain and the equivalent body in Northern Ireland.

“It follows discussions regarding product information changes needed post-approval for dapagliflozin 5 mg specific to type 1 diabetes,” the company said, “which might cause confusion” among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction, or CKD.

AstraZeneca told this news organization that similar communications about the withdrawal were issued to health care agencies and health care professionals in all countries of the EU.
 

‘Appalling, devastating, disappointing’ for patients

The announcement has been met with disappointment in some quarters and outrage in others, and questions have been raised as to the explanation given by AstraZeneca for the drug’s withdrawal.

“Although only a small number of people with type 1 diabetes have been using dapagliflozin, we know that those who have been using it will have been benefitting from tighter control of their condition,” Simon O’Neill, director of health intelligence and professional liaison at Diabetes UK, told this news organization.

“It’s disappointing that these people will now need to go back to the drawing board and will have to work with their clinical team to find other ways of better managing their condition.”

Mr. O’Neill said it was “disappointing that AstraZeneca and the MHRA were unable to find a workable solution to allow people living with type 1 diabetes to continue using the drug safely without leading to confusion for clinicians or people living with type 2 diabetes, who also use it.”

Sanjoy Dutta, JDRF International vice president of research, added that the news is “devastating.”

“The impending negative impact of removing a drug like dapagliflozin from any market can be detrimental in the potential for other national medical ruling boards to have confidence in approving it for their citizens,” he added.

“We stand with our type 1 diabetes communities across the globe in demanding an explanation to clarify this removal.”
 

Why not an educational campaign about DKA risk?

In an interview, Hilary Nathan, policy & communications director at JDRF International, explained that the charity has its theories as to why dapagliflozin has been withdrawn for type 1 diabetes.

What AstraZeneca is saying, “and what we don’t agree with them on,” is that the “black triangle” warning that has to be put onto the drug due to the increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes is “misunderstood by health care practitioners” outside of that specialty and that “by having that black triangle, it will inhibit take-up in those other markets.”

In other words, “there will be less desire to prescribe it,” ventured Ms. Nathan.

She continued: “For us, we feel that if a medicine is deemed safe and efficacious, it should not be withdrawn because of other patient constituencies.”

“We asked: ‘Why can’t you do an educational awareness campaign about the black triangle?’ And the might of AstraZeneca said it would be too big a task.”

Ms. Nathan was also surprised at how the drug could be withdrawn without any warning or real explanation.

“How is it possible that, when a drug is approved there are multiple stakeholders that are involved in putting forward views and experiences – both from the clinical and patient advocacy communities, as well as obviously the pharmaceutical community – yet [a drug] can be withdrawn by a ... company that may well have conflicts of interest around commercial take-up.”

She added: “I feel that there are potentially motives around the withdrawal that AstraZeneca are still not being clear about.”

Perhaps a further clue as to the real motives behind the withdrawal can be found in an announcement, just last week, by the British MHRA.

“The decision by the marketing authorization holder to voluntarily withdraw the indication in type 1 diabetes followed commercial considerations due to a specific European-wide regulatory requirement for this authorization,” it said.

“The decision was not driven by any new safety concerns, such as the already known increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes.”

Separately, a new in-depth investigation into when Johnson & Johnson, which markets another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), first knew that its agent was associated with DKA has revealed multiple discrepancies in staff accounts. Some claim the company knew as early as 2010 that canagliflozin – first approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2013 – could increase the risk of DKA. It was not until May 2015 that the FDA first issued a warning about the potential risk of DKA associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with the EMA following suit a month later. In Dec. 2015, the FDA updated the labels for all SGLT2 inhibitors approved in the United States at that time – canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin – to include the risks for ketoacidosis (and urinary tract infections).

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is manufactured by AstraZeneca. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

In a shocking, yet low-key, announcement, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Forxiga, AstraZeneca) has been withdrawn from the market in all EU countries for the indication of type 1 diabetes.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

This includes withdrawal in the U.K., which was part of the EU when dapagliflozin was approved for type 1 diabetes in 2019, but following Brexit, is no longer.

AstraZeneca said the decision is not motivated by safety concerns but points nevertheless to an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in those with type 1 diabetes, which it said might cause “confusion” among physicians using the drug to treat numerous other indications for which this agent is now approved.

DKA is a potentially dangerous side effect resulting from acid build-up in the blood and is normally accompanied by very high glucose levels. DKA is flagged as a potential side effect in type 2 diabetes but is more common in those with type 1 diabetes. It can also occur as “euglycemic” DKA, which is ketosis but with relatively normal glucose levels (and therefore harder for patients to detect). Euglycemic DKA is thought to be more of a risk in those with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2 diabetes.

One charity believes concerns around safety are the underlying factor for the withdrawal of dapagliflozin for type 1 diabetes in Europe, suggesting that AstraZeneca might not want to risk income from more lucrative indications – such as type 2 diabetes with much larger patient populations – because of potential concerns from doctors, who may be deterred from prescribing the drug due to concerns about DKA.

JDRF International, a leading global type 1 diabetes charity, called on AstraZeneca in a statement “to explain to people affected by type 1 diabetes why the drug has been withdrawn.”

It added that dapagliflozin is the “only other drug besides insulin” to be licensed in Europe for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and represents a “major advancement since the discovery of insulin 100 years ago.”

Karen Addington, U.K. Chief Executive of JDRF, said it is “appalling” that the drug has been withdrawn, as “many people with type 1 are finding it an effective and useful tool to help manage their glucose levels.”
 

SGLT2 inhibitors never approved for type 1 diabetes in U.S.

Dapagliflozin and other drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class had already been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes for a number of years when dapagliflozin was approved in early 2019 for the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes meeting certain criteria by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which at that time included the U.K. in its remit, based on data from the DEPICT series of phase 3 trials.

SGLT2 inhibitors have also recently shown benefit in other indications, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease – even in the absence of diabetes – leaving some to label them a new class of wonder drugs.

Following the 2019 EU approval for type 1 diabetes, dapagliflozin was subsequently recommended for this use on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales and was accompanied by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which has now had to be withdrawn.

Of note, dapagliflozin was never approved for use in type 1 diabetes in the United States (where it is known as Farxiga), with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turning it down in July 2019.

An advisory panel for the FDA also later turned down another SGLT2 inhibitor for type 1 diabetes, empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim) in Nov. 2019, as reported by this news organization.
 

Discontinuation ‘not due to safety concerns,’ says AZ

The announcement to discontinue dapagliflozin for the indication of type 1 diabetes in certain adults just two and a half years after its approval in the EU comes as a big surprise, especially as it was made with little fanfare just last month.

In the U.K., AstraZeneca sent a letter to health care professionals on Nov. 2 stating that, from Oct. 25, dapagliflozin 5 mg was “no longer authorized” for the treatment of type 1 diabetes and “should no longer be used” in this patient population.

However, it underlined that other indications for dapagliflozin 5 mg and 10 mg were “not affected by this licensing change,” and it remains available for adults with type 2 diabetes, as well as for the management of symptomatic chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

In the letter, sent by Tom Keith-Roach, country president of AstraZeneca UK, the company asserts that the removal of the type 1 diabetes indication from dapagliflozin is “not due to any safety concern” with the drug “in any indication, including type 1 diabetes.”

It nevertheless goes on to highlight that DKA is a known common side effect of dapagliflozin in type 1 diabetes and, following the announcement, “additional risk minimization measures ... will no longer be available.”

In a separate statement, AstraZeneca said that the decision to remove the indication was made “voluntarily” and had been “agreed” with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in Great Britain and the equivalent body in Northern Ireland.

“It follows discussions regarding product information changes needed post-approval for dapagliflozin 5 mg specific to type 1 diabetes,” the company said, “which might cause confusion” among physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic heart feature with reduced ejection fraction, or CKD.

AstraZeneca told this news organization that similar communications about the withdrawal were issued to health care agencies and health care professionals in all countries of the EU.
 

‘Appalling, devastating, disappointing’ for patients

The announcement has been met with disappointment in some quarters and outrage in others, and questions have been raised as to the explanation given by AstraZeneca for the drug’s withdrawal.

“Although only a small number of people with type 1 diabetes have been using dapagliflozin, we know that those who have been using it will have been benefitting from tighter control of their condition,” Simon O’Neill, director of health intelligence and professional liaison at Diabetes UK, told this news organization.

“It’s disappointing that these people will now need to go back to the drawing board and will have to work with their clinical team to find other ways of better managing their condition.”

Mr. O’Neill said it was “disappointing that AstraZeneca and the MHRA were unable to find a workable solution to allow people living with type 1 diabetes to continue using the drug safely without leading to confusion for clinicians or people living with type 2 diabetes, who also use it.”

Sanjoy Dutta, JDRF International vice president of research, added that the news is “devastating.”

“The impending negative impact of removing a drug like dapagliflozin from any market can be detrimental in the potential for other national medical ruling boards to have confidence in approving it for their citizens,” he added.

“We stand with our type 1 diabetes communities across the globe in demanding an explanation to clarify this removal.”
 

Why not an educational campaign about DKA risk?

In an interview, Hilary Nathan, policy & communications director at JDRF International, explained that the charity has its theories as to why dapagliflozin has been withdrawn for type 1 diabetes.

What AstraZeneca is saying, “and what we don’t agree with them on,” is that the “black triangle” warning that has to be put onto the drug due to the increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes is “misunderstood by health care practitioners” outside of that specialty and that “by having that black triangle, it will inhibit take-up in those other markets.”

In other words, “there will be less desire to prescribe it,” ventured Ms. Nathan.

She continued: “For us, we feel that if a medicine is deemed safe and efficacious, it should not be withdrawn because of other patient constituencies.”

“We asked: ‘Why can’t you do an educational awareness campaign about the black triangle?’ And the might of AstraZeneca said it would be too big a task.”

Ms. Nathan was also surprised at how the drug could be withdrawn without any warning or real explanation.

“How is it possible that, when a drug is approved there are multiple stakeholders that are involved in putting forward views and experiences – both from the clinical and patient advocacy communities, as well as obviously the pharmaceutical community – yet [a drug] can be withdrawn by a ... company that may well have conflicts of interest around commercial take-up.”

She added: “I feel that there are potentially motives around the withdrawal that AstraZeneca are still not being clear about.”

Perhaps a further clue as to the real motives behind the withdrawal can be found in an announcement, just last week, by the British MHRA.

“The decision by the marketing authorization holder to voluntarily withdraw the indication in type 1 diabetes followed commercial considerations due to a specific European-wide regulatory requirement for this authorization,” it said.

“The decision was not driven by any new safety concerns, such as the already known increased risk of DKA in type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes.”

Separately, a new in-depth investigation into when Johnson & Johnson, which markets another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), first knew that its agent was associated with DKA has revealed multiple discrepancies in staff accounts. Some claim the company knew as early as 2010 that canagliflozin – first approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States in 2013 – could increase the risk of DKA. It was not until May 2015 that the FDA first issued a warning about the potential risk of DKA associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, with the EMA following suit a month later. In Dec. 2015, the FDA updated the labels for all SGLT2 inhibitors approved in the United States at that time – canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin – to include the risks for ketoacidosis (and urinary tract infections).

Forxiga (dapagliflozin) is manufactured by AstraZeneca. No relevant financial relationships declared.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.

iStock/ThinkStock

On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.

Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.

“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.

House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.

It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.

That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.

Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.

“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”

The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.

“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
 

Better deals for military, medicaid programs

Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.

Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing. 

For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.

The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.

The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.

But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
 

Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery

The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.

Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.

Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.

Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.

Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.

Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.

“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern. 

GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).

Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.

In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”

“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.

$35 a month for insulin?

Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.

“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.

“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”

Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.

“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”

Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”

In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35. 

The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.

“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.

People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.

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

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) development, as well as more severe symptoms and more rapid disease progression, new research suggests.

In a systematic review, patients with type 2 diabetes were 34% more likely to develop PD than those without comorbid DM. In addition, patients with both conditions had significantly worse scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and worse cognitive performance.

Together, the results suggest that “DM may be a facilitating factor of neurodegeneration,” wrote the investigators, led by Gennaro Pagano, MD, PhD, expert medical director at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, in Basel, Switzerland.

The findings were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
 

Unanswered questions

Researchers have long proposed a potential relationship between diabetes and PD. However, case-control studies have yielded conflicting results about this relationship – and previous systematic reviews have failed to clarify the question.

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators identified relevant studies in databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus.

Eligible studies reported prevalence of DM in patients with PD, reported incidence of PD in those with and those without DM, and analyzed Parkinson’s phenotype and progression in those with and those without DM.

The researchers identified 3,829 articles in their initial search, evaluated 90 articles in detail, and included 43 studies in their analysis. Study quality was judged to be moderate or good, and the investigators did not find significant publication bias.

Twenty-one studies that encompassed 11,396 patients were examined to determine prevalence of DM in PD. This prevalence was calculated to be 10.02%, which is similar to the global prevalence of 9.3% reported in 2019.

The researchers also analyzed 12 cohort studies that included 17,797,221 patients to calculate risk for PD in patients with comorbid diabetes. The pooled summary odds ratio for incident PD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 1.34.

The evaluation of the effect of diabetes on PD severity was based on 10 studies that included 603 patients with both diseases. Because data on motor symptoms were not available for all studies, the researchers considered Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS score, and cognitive impairment.

Patients with both conditions had a worse Hoehn and Yahr stage (standardized mean difference, 0.36; P < .001), and higher UPDRS score (SMD, 0.60; P < .001). In 7 of the 10 studies, diabetes was associated with worse cognitive performance in patients with PD.
 

Mechanisms uncertain

The mechanisms of the effect of diabetes on risk for and severity of PD are uncertain, but the researchers have developed hypotheses.

“Overlapping mechanisms between insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and alpha-synuclein expression could influence the development of the neurodegeneration process,” they wrote.

Because the current analysis demonstrated a trend toward more pronounced cognitive decline in patients with the comorbidities, clinicians should pay particular attention to the progression of motor and cognitive symptoms in patients with these diseases, the investigators noted.

“Additional studies are needed in order to better define the clinical phenotype of PD-DM patients and explore the role of antidiabetic drugs on PD progression,” they wrote.

They add that future studies also are needed to evaluate whether antidiabetic drugs might reduce risk for PD in these patients.

The investigators noted several limitations of their research. In many of the studies they examined, for example, diagnostic criteria of type 2 diabetes and PD were based only on medical records or self-reported health questionnaires. The diagnoses were rarely confirmed.

In addition, not all studies clearly stated that their populations presented with type 2 diabetes. Finally, patients with diabetes may be at increased risk for cardiovascular death, which could affect follow-up related to the development of PD, the investigators noted.

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

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) development, as well as more severe symptoms and more rapid disease progression, new research suggests.

In a systematic review, patients with type 2 diabetes were 34% more likely to develop PD than those without comorbid DM. In addition, patients with both conditions had significantly worse scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and worse cognitive performance.

Together, the results suggest that “DM may be a facilitating factor of neurodegeneration,” wrote the investigators, led by Gennaro Pagano, MD, PhD, expert medical director at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, in Basel, Switzerland.

The findings were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
 

Unanswered questions

Researchers have long proposed a potential relationship between diabetes and PD. However, case-control studies have yielded conflicting results about this relationship – and previous systematic reviews have failed to clarify the question.

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators identified relevant studies in databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus.

Eligible studies reported prevalence of DM in patients with PD, reported incidence of PD in those with and those without DM, and analyzed Parkinson’s phenotype and progression in those with and those without DM.

The researchers identified 3,829 articles in their initial search, evaluated 90 articles in detail, and included 43 studies in their analysis. Study quality was judged to be moderate or good, and the investigators did not find significant publication bias.

Twenty-one studies that encompassed 11,396 patients were examined to determine prevalence of DM in PD. This prevalence was calculated to be 10.02%, which is similar to the global prevalence of 9.3% reported in 2019.

The researchers also analyzed 12 cohort studies that included 17,797,221 patients to calculate risk for PD in patients with comorbid diabetes. The pooled summary odds ratio for incident PD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 1.34.

The evaluation of the effect of diabetes on PD severity was based on 10 studies that included 603 patients with both diseases. Because data on motor symptoms were not available for all studies, the researchers considered Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS score, and cognitive impairment.

Patients with both conditions had a worse Hoehn and Yahr stage (standardized mean difference, 0.36; P < .001), and higher UPDRS score (SMD, 0.60; P < .001). In 7 of the 10 studies, diabetes was associated with worse cognitive performance in patients with PD.
 

Mechanisms uncertain

The mechanisms of the effect of diabetes on risk for and severity of PD are uncertain, but the researchers have developed hypotheses.

“Overlapping mechanisms between insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and alpha-synuclein expression could influence the development of the neurodegeneration process,” they wrote.

Because the current analysis demonstrated a trend toward more pronounced cognitive decline in patients with the comorbidities, clinicians should pay particular attention to the progression of motor and cognitive symptoms in patients with these diseases, the investigators noted.

“Additional studies are needed in order to better define the clinical phenotype of PD-DM patients and explore the role of antidiabetic drugs on PD progression,” they wrote.

They add that future studies also are needed to evaluate whether antidiabetic drugs might reduce risk for PD in these patients.

The investigators noted several limitations of their research. In many of the studies they examined, for example, diagnostic criteria of type 2 diabetes and PD were based only on medical records or self-reported health questionnaires. The diagnoses were rarely confirmed.

In addition, not all studies clearly stated that their populations presented with type 2 diabetes. Finally, patients with diabetes may be at increased risk for cardiovascular death, which could affect follow-up related to the development of PD, the investigators noted.

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

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) development, as well as more severe symptoms and more rapid disease progression, new research suggests.

In a systematic review, patients with type 2 diabetes were 34% more likely to develop PD than those without comorbid DM. In addition, patients with both conditions had significantly worse scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and worse cognitive performance.

Together, the results suggest that “DM may be a facilitating factor of neurodegeneration,” wrote the investigators, led by Gennaro Pagano, MD, PhD, expert medical director at Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, in Basel, Switzerland.

The findings were published in a recent issue of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease.
 

Unanswered questions

Researchers have long proposed a potential relationship between diabetes and PD. However, case-control studies have yielded conflicting results about this relationship – and previous systematic reviews have failed to clarify the question.

In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, investigators identified relevant studies in databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus.

Eligible studies reported prevalence of DM in patients with PD, reported incidence of PD in those with and those without DM, and analyzed Parkinson’s phenotype and progression in those with and those without DM.

The researchers identified 3,829 articles in their initial search, evaluated 90 articles in detail, and included 43 studies in their analysis. Study quality was judged to be moderate or good, and the investigators did not find significant publication bias.

Twenty-one studies that encompassed 11,396 patients were examined to determine prevalence of DM in PD. This prevalence was calculated to be 10.02%, which is similar to the global prevalence of 9.3% reported in 2019.

The researchers also analyzed 12 cohort studies that included 17,797,221 patients to calculate risk for PD in patients with comorbid diabetes. The pooled summary odds ratio for incident PD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 1.34.

The evaluation of the effect of diabetes on PD severity was based on 10 studies that included 603 patients with both diseases. Because data on motor symptoms were not available for all studies, the researchers considered Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS score, and cognitive impairment.

Patients with both conditions had a worse Hoehn and Yahr stage (standardized mean difference, 0.36; P < .001), and higher UPDRS score (SMD, 0.60; P < .001). In 7 of the 10 studies, diabetes was associated with worse cognitive performance in patients with PD.
 

Mechanisms uncertain

The mechanisms of the effect of diabetes on risk for and severity of PD are uncertain, but the researchers have developed hypotheses.

“Overlapping mechanisms between insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and alpha-synuclein expression could influence the development of the neurodegeneration process,” they wrote.

Because the current analysis demonstrated a trend toward more pronounced cognitive decline in patients with the comorbidities, clinicians should pay particular attention to the progression of motor and cognitive symptoms in patients with these diseases, the investigators noted.

“Additional studies are needed in order to better define the clinical phenotype of PD-DM patients and explore the role of antidiabetic drugs on PD progression,” they wrote.

They add that future studies also are needed to evaluate whether antidiabetic drugs might reduce risk for PD in these patients.

The investigators noted several limitations of their research. In many of the studies they examined, for example, diagnostic criteria of type 2 diabetes and PD were based only on medical records or self-reported health questionnaires. The diagnoses were rarely confirmed.

In addition, not all studies clearly stated that their populations presented with type 2 diabetes. Finally, patients with diabetes may be at increased risk for cardiovascular death, which could affect follow-up related to the development of PD, the investigators noted.

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

The majority of people with HIV and type 2 diabetes do not receive the recommended routine screenings necessary to prevent chronic complications associated with that comorbidity, research shows.

“Despite known risk in this patient population, most patients were not up to date with routine preventative screenings,” report Maya Hardman, PharmD, and colleagues with Southwest CARE Center, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in research presented at the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Routine preventative screenings can help identify chronic complications of diabetes early, if performed at the recommended intervals,” they write.

People with HIV are known to be at an increased risk of diabetes and the long-term complications of the disease, making the need for routine screening to prevent such complications all the more pressing due to their higher-risk health status.

Among the key routine diabetes care quality measures recommended by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for people with HIV are testing for A1c once every 3 months, foot and eye exams every 12 months, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) screenings every 12 months, and two controlled blood pressure readings every 12 months.

To investigate the rates of adherence to the HEDIS screening recommendations and identify predictors of poor compliance among people with HIV, Dr. Hardman and her colleagues evaluated data on 121 adult patients at the Southwest CARE Center who had been diagnosed with diabetes and HIV and were treated between 2019 and 2020.

The patients had a mean age of 57.5, and 9% were female. Their mean duration of being HIV positive was 19.8 years, and they had an intermediate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score of 17.08%.

Despite their known diagnoses of having diabetes, as many as 93.4% were found not to be up to date on their routine preventive screenings.

Of the 121 patients, only 30 had received the recommended A1c screenings, 37 had the recommended UACR screenings, and just 18 had received the recommended foot exam screenings.

Only blood pressure screenings, reported in 90 of the 121 patients, were up to date in the majority of patients in the group.

In looking at factors associated with compliance with A1c screening, only age (OR, 0.95; P = .04) was a significant predictor.

The authors pointed out that routine screenings for diabetes complications are relatively easy to implement.

“Screening for these chronic complications is minimally invasive and can be provided by individuals trained in diabetes management during routine clinic appointments.”

The team’s ongoing research is evaluating the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services in assisting with the screenings for patients with HIV.

Research underscoring the increased risk and poorer treatment outcomes of diabetes in people with HIV include a study comparing 337 people with HIV in 2005 with a cohort of 338 participants in 2015.

The study showed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes had increased to 15.1% in 2015 from 6.8% 10 years earlier, for a relative risk of 2.4 compared with the general population.

“The alarmingly high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in HIV requires improved screening, targeted to older patients and those with a longer duration of exposure to antiretrovirals,” the authors wrote.

“Effective diabetes prevention and management strategies are needed urgently to reduce this risk; such interventions should target both conventional risk factors, such as abdominal obesity and HIV-specific risk factors such as weight gain following initiation of antiretrovirals.”

Of note, the 2015 cohort was significantly older and had higher BMI and higher hypertension than the 2005 cohort.

First author Alastair Duncan, PhD, principal dietitian at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital and lecturer, King’s College London, noted that since that 2015 study was published, concerns particularly with weight gain in the HIV population have only increased.

“Weight gain appears to be more of an issue [now],” he told this news organization in an interview.

“As in the general population, people living with HIV experienced significant weight gain during COVID-related lockdowns. Added to the high number of people living with HIV being treated with integrase inhibitors, weight gain remains a challenge.”

Meanwhile, “there are not enough studies comparing people living with HIV with the general population,” Dr. Duncan added. “We need to conduct studies where participants are matched.”

Sudipa Sarkar, MD, who co-authored a report on the issue of diabetes and HIV this year but was not involved in the study presented at USCHA, noted that the setting of care could play an important role in the quality of screening for diabetes that people with HIV receive.

“It may depend on factors such as whether a patient is being followed regularly by an HIV care provider and the larger health care system that the patient is in,” Dr. Sarkar, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, told this news organization.

“For example, one might find differences between a patient being seen in a managed care group versus not.”

The issue of how the strikingly high rates of inadequate screening in the current study compare with routine screening in the general diabetes population “is a good question and warrants more research,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Sarkar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of people with HIV and type 2 diabetes do not receive the recommended routine screenings necessary to prevent chronic complications associated with that comorbidity, research shows.

“Despite known risk in this patient population, most patients were not up to date with routine preventative screenings,” report Maya Hardman, PharmD, and colleagues with Southwest CARE Center, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in research presented at the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Routine preventative screenings can help identify chronic complications of diabetes early, if performed at the recommended intervals,” they write.

People with HIV are known to be at an increased risk of diabetes and the long-term complications of the disease, making the need for routine screening to prevent such complications all the more pressing due to their higher-risk health status.

Among the key routine diabetes care quality measures recommended by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for people with HIV are testing for A1c once every 3 months, foot and eye exams every 12 months, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) screenings every 12 months, and two controlled blood pressure readings every 12 months.

To investigate the rates of adherence to the HEDIS screening recommendations and identify predictors of poor compliance among people with HIV, Dr. Hardman and her colleagues evaluated data on 121 adult patients at the Southwest CARE Center who had been diagnosed with diabetes and HIV and were treated between 2019 and 2020.

The patients had a mean age of 57.5, and 9% were female. Their mean duration of being HIV positive was 19.8 years, and they had an intermediate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score of 17.08%.

Despite their known diagnoses of having diabetes, as many as 93.4% were found not to be up to date on their routine preventive screenings.

Of the 121 patients, only 30 had received the recommended A1c screenings, 37 had the recommended UACR screenings, and just 18 had received the recommended foot exam screenings.

Only blood pressure screenings, reported in 90 of the 121 patients, were up to date in the majority of patients in the group.

In looking at factors associated with compliance with A1c screening, only age (OR, 0.95; P = .04) was a significant predictor.

The authors pointed out that routine screenings for diabetes complications are relatively easy to implement.

“Screening for these chronic complications is minimally invasive and can be provided by individuals trained in diabetes management during routine clinic appointments.”

The team’s ongoing research is evaluating the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services in assisting with the screenings for patients with HIV.

Research underscoring the increased risk and poorer treatment outcomes of diabetes in people with HIV include a study comparing 337 people with HIV in 2005 with a cohort of 338 participants in 2015.

The study showed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes had increased to 15.1% in 2015 from 6.8% 10 years earlier, for a relative risk of 2.4 compared with the general population.

“The alarmingly high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in HIV requires improved screening, targeted to older patients and those with a longer duration of exposure to antiretrovirals,” the authors wrote.

“Effective diabetes prevention and management strategies are needed urgently to reduce this risk; such interventions should target both conventional risk factors, such as abdominal obesity and HIV-specific risk factors such as weight gain following initiation of antiretrovirals.”

Of note, the 2015 cohort was significantly older and had higher BMI and higher hypertension than the 2005 cohort.

First author Alastair Duncan, PhD, principal dietitian at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital and lecturer, King’s College London, noted that since that 2015 study was published, concerns particularly with weight gain in the HIV population have only increased.

“Weight gain appears to be more of an issue [now],” he told this news organization in an interview.

“As in the general population, people living with HIV experienced significant weight gain during COVID-related lockdowns. Added to the high number of people living with HIV being treated with integrase inhibitors, weight gain remains a challenge.”

Meanwhile, “there are not enough studies comparing people living with HIV with the general population,” Dr. Duncan added. “We need to conduct studies where participants are matched.”

Sudipa Sarkar, MD, who co-authored a report on the issue of diabetes and HIV this year but was not involved in the study presented at USCHA, noted that the setting of care could play an important role in the quality of screening for diabetes that people with HIV receive.

“It may depend on factors such as whether a patient is being followed regularly by an HIV care provider and the larger health care system that the patient is in,” Dr. Sarkar, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, told this news organization.

“For example, one might find differences between a patient being seen in a managed care group versus not.”

The issue of how the strikingly high rates of inadequate screening in the current study compare with routine screening in the general diabetes population “is a good question and warrants more research,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Sarkar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of people with HIV and type 2 diabetes do not receive the recommended routine screenings necessary to prevent chronic complications associated with that comorbidity, research shows.

“Despite known risk in this patient population, most patients were not up to date with routine preventative screenings,” report Maya Hardman, PharmD, and colleagues with Southwest CARE Center, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in research presented at the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“Routine preventative screenings can help identify chronic complications of diabetes early, if performed at the recommended intervals,” they write.

People with HIV are known to be at an increased risk of diabetes and the long-term complications of the disease, making the need for routine screening to prevent such complications all the more pressing due to their higher-risk health status.

Among the key routine diabetes care quality measures recommended by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) for people with HIV are testing for A1c once every 3 months, foot and eye exams every 12 months, urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) screenings every 12 months, and two controlled blood pressure readings every 12 months.

To investigate the rates of adherence to the HEDIS screening recommendations and identify predictors of poor compliance among people with HIV, Dr. Hardman and her colleagues evaluated data on 121 adult patients at the Southwest CARE Center who had been diagnosed with diabetes and HIV and were treated between 2019 and 2020.

The patients had a mean age of 57.5, and 9% were female. Their mean duration of being HIV positive was 19.8 years, and they had an intermediate Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) risk score of 17.08%.

Despite their known diagnoses of having diabetes, as many as 93.4% were found not to be up to date on their routine preventive screenings.

Of the 121 patients, only 30 had received the recommended A1c screenings, 37 had the recommended UACR screenings, and just 18 had received the recommended foot exam screenings.

Only blood pressure screenings, reported in 90 of the 121 patients, were up to date in the majority of patients in the group.

In looking at factors associated with compliance with A1c screening, only age (OR, 0.95; P = .04) was a significant predictor.

The authors pointed out that routine screenings for diabetes complications are relatively easy to implement.

“Screening for these chronic complications is minimally invasive and can be provided by individuals trained in diabetes management during routine clinic appointments.”

The team’s ongoing research is evaluating the potential benefits of clinical pharmacy services in assisting with the screenings for patients with HIV.

Research underscoring the increased risk and poorer treatment outcomes of diabetes in people with HIV include a study comparing 337 people with HIV in 2005 with a cohort of 338 participants in 2015.

The study showed the prevalence of type 2 diabetes had increased to 15.1% in 2015 from 6.8% 10 years earlier, for a relative risk of 2.4 compared with the general population.

“The alarmingly high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in HIV requires improved screening, targeted to older patients and those with a longer duration of exposure to antiretrovirals,” the authors wrote.

“Effective diabetes prevention and management strategies are needed urgently to reduce this risk; such interventions should target both conventional risk factors, such as abdominal obesity and HIV-specific risk factors such as weight gain following initiation of antiretrovirals.”

Of note, the 2015 cohort was significantly older and had higher BMI and higher hypertension than the 2005 cohort.

First author Alastair Duncan, PhD, principal dietitian at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospital and lecturer, King’s College London, noted that since that 2015 study was published, concerns particularly with weight gain in the HIV population have only increased.

“Weight gain appears to be more of an issue [now],” he told this news organization in an interview.

“As in the general population, people living with HIV experienced significant weight gain during COVID-related lockdowns. Added to the high number of people living with HIV being treated with integrase inhibitors, weight gain remains a challenge.”

Meanwhile, “there are not enough studies comparing people living with HIV with the general population,” Dr. Duncan added. “We need to conduct studies where participants are matched.”

Sudipa Sarkar, MD, who co-authored a report on the issue of diabetes and HIV this year but was not involved in the study presented at USCHA, noted that the setting of care could play an important role in the quality of screening for diabetes that people with HIV receive.

“It may depend on factors such as whether a patient is being followed regularly by an HIV care provider and the larger health care system that the patient is in,” Dr. Sarkar, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, told this news organization.

“For example, one might find differences between a patient being seen in a managed care group versus not.”

The issue of how the strikingly high rates of inadequate screening in the current study compare with routine screening in the general diabetes population “is a good question and warrants more research,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Sarkar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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