Diabetes

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

People with diabetes are at increased risk of hospitalization for infection, as well as infection-related mortality, shows a large U.S. study that suggests the risk is even higher in younger and Black individuals.

Michael Fang, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues studied more than 12,000 participants in a community cohort study who were followed for an average of 24 years, between 1987-1989 and 2019.

Participants with diabetes faced a 67% increase risk of infection-related hospitalization, compared with those without diabetes.

Of particular note, the risk of hospitalization with foot infection was almost sixfold higher for people with diabetes than those without.

The research, published in Diabetologia on August 4, also suggests that diabetes may be associated with a 72% increased risk of infection-related mortality, although the absolute numbers were small.

Dr. Fang explained to this news organization that they focused on infection-related hospitalization and mortality “because these are comprehensively tracked in administrative data and ... are the most severe types of outcomes.”

However, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, as people with diabetes are “likely at increased risk for milder infection too,” which can have a “significant adverse impact on people’s well-being and quality of life.”

As a result of their findings, the authors call for “broader guidance on infection prevention and management” in people with diabetes. To achieve this, Dr. Fang said, “we need to better understand why diabetes is associated with an increased risk of infection-related complications.”

“One likely factor is glycemic control: Emerging research suggests patients with diabetes with better glycemic control may be at significantly lower risk of infection-related complications.”

He continued that, in younger patients, a factor for worse outcomes could be that “diabetes tends to be more aggressive when it emerges early in life,” while in Black patients “there is research highlighting Black-White differences in glycemic control, access to care, and beliefs around vaccines.”

Overall, their findings – coupled with recent data showing that diabetes is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection – paint “a common picture,” Dr. Fang said.

“People with diabetes are much more susceptible to infection-related complications, including COVID-related hospitalization and mortality,” which suggests people with diabetes “may need to be especially cautious.”
 

Adds to existing literature; amputations begin with infections

Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association (ADA), said the study “does add to the existing literature by having followed a larger number of people over time and linking them to serious complications from infections.”

“Sadly, we have seen this play out in real-time during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“One of the sobering bits of data is the significant health disparities that exist in Black Americans and the fact that foot infections remain a significant problem,” he said in an interview.

“Given that amputation rates for [Black Americans] are three times higher than White Americans, amputations begin with infections,” Dr. Gabbay added, noting the ADA “has been taking a strong stand to prevent amputations and address the inequities in health that exist.”

Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, PhD, from the University of Oxford, U.K., who was not involved in the study, commented that diabetes is a “well-known risk factor for worse outcomes from all kinds of infection,” which is why they “are prioritized for flu vaccination every year.”

She told this news organization that the current study “further confirms that people with diabetes are more likely to be hospitalized for infection of any type and most markedly for foot infection.”

“These new data further highlight the need for public health interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes, and for preventive health care in people with diabetes, including access to diabetes medications and support and to vaccinations to prevent infection,” added Dr. Hartmann-Boyce, who is a senior research fellow in health behaviors.

Diabetes is thought to be associated with susceptibility to infection via mechanisms such as impaired neutrophil functioning and humoral immune responses, and studies have shown a link with both common and rare infections.

However, the authors point out that “most” of those included “small clinical populations and were cross-sectional or had short follow-up.”

Guidelines for diabetes management, they note, also “pay less attention” to infectious diseases than they do to the prevention of micro- and macrovascular complications.
 

ARIC data mined for infections in those with diabetes

The team analyzed data from the ongoing U.S. community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored cohort was comprised of adults aged 45-64 years from four U.S. communities, recruited between 1987 and 1989 for clinical examinations, medical interviews, and laboratory tests, repeated over five more visits up to 2018-2019.

For the current analysis, the team included 12,739 individuals with a mean age of 54.5 years, of whom 54.3% were female and 24.7% were Black.

Patients were defined as having diabetes if their baseline fasting blood glucose was greater than or equal to 7 mmol/L, or nonfasting glucose was greater than or equal to 11.1 mmol/l, they self-reported a diagnosis of diabetes by a physician, or they were taking glucose-lowering medication at the first study visit. The researchers weren’t able to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In total, 1,485 individuals had diabetes at baseline. They were more likely to be older, Black, have a low socioeconomic status, and have worse cardiometabolic health than participants without diabetes.

Over an average follow-up of 23.8 years, there were 4,229 incident hospitalizations for infection, at an overall rate of 15.9 per 1,000 person-years.

Individuals with diabetes at baseline had a higher rate of hospitalizations than those without, at 25.4 per 1,000 person-years versus 15.2 per 1,000 person-years.

After taking into account sociodemographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and cardiometabolic risk factors, this equated to a hazard ratio for hospitalization with any infection of 1.67 (P < .001).

The risk of hospitalization for any infection was significantly higher for younger patients with diabetes, defined as aged less than 55 years (P = .005), and for Black patients (P < .001).

While the increased risk was generally consistent across infection types, it was markedly increased for foot infection, at a hazard ratio of 5.99 (P < .001).

Overall, there were few deaths due to infection in the study, at just 362. The risk of infection mortality was nevertheless significantly increased in people with diabetes, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.72 (P < .001).

Dr. Fang has reported being supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Selvin has reported being supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Selvin is an associate editor for Diabetologia and had no role in the peer review of the manuscript.

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

Nearly half of adults prescribed metformin after a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes have stopped taking it by 1 year, new data show.

SDI Productions/E+

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of administrative data from Alberta, Canada, during 2012-2017, also show that the fall-off in metformin adherence was most dramatic during the first 30 days, and in most cases, there was no concomitant substitution of another glucose-lowering drug.

While the majority with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were prescribed metformin as first-line therapy, patients started on other agents incurred far higher medication and health care costs.

The data were recently published online in Diabetic Medicine by David J. T. Campbell, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues.

“We realized that even if someone is prescribed metformin that doesn’t mean they’re staying on metformin even for a year ... the drop-off rate is really quite abrupt,” Dr. Campbell said in an interview. Most who discontinued had A1c levels above 7.5%, so it wasn’t that they no longer needed glucose-lowering medication, he noted.
 

People don’t understand chronic use; meds don’t make you feel better

One reason for the discontinuations, he said, is that patients might not realize they need to keep taking the medication.

“When a physician is seeing a person with newly diagnosed diabetes, I think it’s important to remember that they might not know the implications of having a chronic condition. A lot of times we’re quick to prescribe metformin and forget about it. ... Physicians might write a script for 3 months and three refills and not see the patient again for a year ... We may need to keep a closer eye on these folks and have more regular follow-up, and make sure they’re getting early diabetes education.”

Side effects are an issue, but not for most. “Any clinician who prescribes metformin knows there are side effects, such as upset stomach, diarrhea, and nausea. But certainly, it’s not half [who experience these]. ... A lot of people just aren’t accepting of having to take it lifelong, especially since they probably don’t feel any better on it,” Dr. Campbell said.  

James Flory, MD, an endocrinologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview that about 25% of patients taking metformin experience gastrointestinal side effects.

Moreover, he noted that the drop-off in adherence is also seen with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs that have fewer side effects than those of metformin. He pointed to a “striking example” of this, a 2011 randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and as reported by this news organization, showing overall rates of adherence to these medications was around 50%, even among people who had already had a myocardial infarction.   

“People really don’t want to be on these medications. ... They have an aversion to being medicalized and taking pills. If they’re not being pretty consistently prompted and reminded and urged to take them, I think people will find rationalizations, reasons for stopping. ... I think people want to handle things through lifestyle and not be on a drug,” noted Dr. Flory, who has published on the subject of metformin adherence.

“These drugs don’t make people feel better. None of them do. At best they don’t make you feel worse. You have to really believe in the chronic condition and believe that it’s hurting you and that you can’t handle it without the drugs to motivate you to keep taking them,” Dr. Flory explained.

Communication with the patient is key, he added.

“I don’t have empirical data to support this, but I feel it’s helpful to acknowledge the downsides to patients. I tell them to let me know [if they’re having side effects] and we’ll work on it. Don’t just stop taking the drug and never circle back.” At the same time, he added, “I think it’s important to emphasize metformin’s safety and effectiveness.”

For patients experiencing gastrointestinal side effects, options including switching to extended-release metformin or lowering the dose.

Also, while patients are typically advised to take metformin with food, some experience diarrhea when they do that and prefer to take it at bedtime than with dinner. “If that’s what works for people, that’s what they should do,” Dr. Flory advised.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time to emphasize to patients the safety and this level of flexibility and control they should be able to exercise over how much they take and when. These things should really help.”  
 

Metformin usually prescribed, but not always taken

Dr. Campbell and colleagues analyzed 17,932 individuals with incident type 2 diabetes diagnosed between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Overall, 89% received metformin monotherapy as their initial diabetes prescription, 7.6% started metformin in combination with another glucose-lowering drug, and 3.3% were prescribed a nonmetformin diabetes medication. (Those prescribed insulin as their first diabetes medication were excluded.) 

The most commonly coprescribed drugs with metformin were sulfonylureas (in 47%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (28%). Of those initiated with only nonmetformin medications, sulfonylureas were also the most common (53%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors second (21%).

The metformin prescribing rate of 89% reflects current guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted.

“In hypertension, clinicians weren’t really following the guidelines ... they were prescribing more expensive drugs than the guidelines say. ... We showed that in diabetes, contrary to hypertension, clinicians really are generally following the clinical practice guidelines. ... The vast majority who are started on metformin are started on monotherapy. That was reassuring to us. We’re not paying for a bunch of expensive drugs when metformin would do just as well,” he said.

However, the proportion who had been dispensed metformin to cover the prescribed number of days dropped by about 10% after 30 days, by a further 10% after 90 days, and yet again after 100 days, resulting in just 54% remaining on the drug by 1 year.

Factors associated with higher adherence included older age, presence of comorbidities, and highest versus lowest neighborhood income quintile.

Those who had been prescribed nonmetformin monotherapy had about twice the total health care costs of those initially prescribed metformin monotherapy. Higher health care costs were seen among patients who were younger, had lower incomes, had higher baseline A1c, had more comorbidities, and were men.

How will the newer type 2 diabetes drugs change prescribing?

Dr. Campbell noted that “a lot has changed since 2017. ... At least in Canada, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were supposed to be reserved as second-line agents in patients with cardiovascular disease, but more and more they’re being thought of as first-line agents in high-risk patients.”

“I suspect as those guidelines are transmitted to primary care colleagues who are doing the bulk of the prescribing we’ll see more and more uptake of these agents.”

Indeed, Dr. Flory said, “The metformin data at this point are very dated and the body of trials showing health benefits for it is actually very weak compared to the big trials that have been done for the newer agents, to the point where you can imagine a consensus gradually forming where people start to recommend something other than metformin for nearly everybody with type 2 diabetes. The cost implications are just huge, and I think the safety implications as well.”

According to Dr. Flory, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are fundamentally not as safe as metformin. I think they’re very safe drugs – large good studies have established that – but if you’re going to give drugs to a large number of people who are pretty healthy at baseline the safety standards have to be pretty high.”

Just the elevated risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis alone is reason for pause, Dr. Flory said. “Even though it’s manageable ... metformin just doesn’t have a safety problem like that. I’m very comfortable prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, but If I’m going to give a drug to a million people and have nothing go wrong with any of them, that would be metformin, not an SGLT2 [inhibitor].”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues will be conducting a follow-up of prescribing data through 2019, which will of course include the newer agents. They’ll also investigate reasons for drug discontinuation and outcomes of those who discontinue versus continue metformin.

Dr. Campbell has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Flory consults for a legal firm on litigation related to insulin analog pricing issues, not for or pertaining to a specific company.

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

Nearly half of adults prescribed metformin after a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes have stopped taking it by 1 year, new data show.

SDI Productions/E+

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of administrative data from Alberta, Canada, during 2012-2017, also show that the fall-off in metformin adherence was most dramatic during the first 30 days, and in most cases, there was no concomitant substitution of another glucose-lowering drug.

While the majority with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were prescribed metformin as first-line therapy, patients started on other agents incurred far higher medication and health care costs.

The data were recently published online in Diabetic Medicine by David J. T. Campbell, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues.

“We realized that even if someone is prescribed metformin that doesn’t mean they’re staying on metformin even for a year ... the drop-off rate is really quite abrupt,” Dr. Campbell said in an interview. Most who discontinued had A1c levels above 7.5%, so it wasn’t that they no longer needed glucose-lowering medication, he noted.
 

People don’t understand chronic use; meds don’t make you feel better

One reason for the discontinuations, he said, is that patients might not realize they need to keep taking the medication.

“When a physician is seeing a person with newly diagnosed diabetes, I think it’s important to remember that they might not know the implications of having a chronic condition. A lot of times we’re quick to prescribe metformin and forget about it. ... Physicians might write a script for 3 months and three refills and not see the patient again for a year ... We may need to keep a closer eye on these folks and have more regular follow-up, and make sure they’re getting early diabetes education.”

Side effects are an issue, but not for most. “Any clinician who prescribes metformin knows there are side effects, such as upset stomach, diarrhea, and nausea. But certainly, it’s not half [who experience these]. ... A lot of people just aren’t accepting of having to take it lifelong, especially since they probably don’t feel any better on it,” Dr. Campbell said.  

James Flory, MD, an endocrinologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview that about 25% of patients taking metformin experience gastrointestinal side effects.

Moreover, he noted that the drop-off in adherence is also seen with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs that have fewer side effects than those of metformin. He pointed to a “striking example” of this, a 2011 randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and as reported by this news organization, showing overall rates of adherence to these medications was around 50%, even among people who had already had a myocardial infarction.   

“People really don’t want to be on these medications. ... They have an aversion to being medicalized and taking pills. If they’re not being pretty consistently prompted and reminded and urged to take them, I think people will find rationalizations, reasons for stopping. ... I think people want to handle things through lifestyle and not be on a drug,” noted Dr. Flory, who has published on the subject of metformin adherence.

“These drugs don’t make people feel better. None of them do. At best they don’t make you feel worse. You have to really believe in the chronic condition and believe that it’s hurting you and that you can’t handle it without the drugs to motivate you to keep taking them,” Dr. Flory explained.

Communication with the patient is key, he added.

“I don’t have empirical data to support this, but I feel it’s helpful to acknowledge the downsides to patients. I tell them to let me know [if they’re having side effects] and we’ll work on it. Don’t just stop taking the drug and never circle back.” At the same time, he added, “I think it’s important to emphasize metformin’s safety and effectiveness.”

For patients experiencing gastrointestinal side effects, options including switching to extended-release metformin or lowering the dose.

Also, while patients are typically advised to take metformin with food, some experience diarrhea when they do that and prefer to take it at bedtime than with dinner. “If that’s what works for people, that’s what they should do,” Dr. Flory advised.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time to emphasize to patients the safety and this level of flexibility and control they should be able to exercise over how much they take and when. These things should really help.”  
 

Metformin usually prescribed, but not always taken

Dr. Campbell and colleagues analyzed 17,932 individuals with incident type 2 diabetes diagnosed between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Overall, 89% received metformin monotherapy as their initial diabetes prescription, 7.6% started metformin in combination with another glucose-lowering drug, and 3.3% were prescribed a nonmetformin diabetes medication. (Those prescribed insulin as their first diabetes medication were excluded.) 

The most commonly coprescribed drugs with metformin were sulfonylureas (in 47%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (28%). Of those initiated with only nonmetformin medications, sulfonylureas were also the most common (53%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors second (21%).

The metformin prescribing rate of 89% reflects current guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted.

“In hypertension, clinicians weren’t really following the guidelines ... they were prescribing more expensive drugs than the guidelines say. ... We showed that in diabetes, contrary to hypertension, clinicians really are generally following the clinical practice guidelines. ... The vast majority who are started on metformin are started on monotherapy. That was reassuring to us. We’re not paying for a bunch of expensive drugs when metformin would do just as well,” he said.

However, the proportion who had been dispensed metformin to cover the prescribed number of days dropped by about 10% after 30 days, by a further 10% after 90 days, and yet again after 100 days, resulting in just 54% remaining on the drug by 1 year.

Factors associated with higher adherence included older age, presence of comorbidities, and highest versus lowest neighborhood income quintile.

Those who had been prescribed nonmetformin monotherapy had about twice the total health care costs of those initially prescribed metformin monotherapy. Higher health care costs were seen among patients who were younger, had lower incomes, had higher baseline A1c, had more comorbidities, and were men.

How will the newer type 2 diabetes drugs change prescribing?

Dr. Campbell noted that “a lot has changed since 2017. ... At least in Canada, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were supposed to be reserved as second-line agents in patients with cardiovascular disease, but more and more they’re being thought of as first-line agents in high-risk patients.”

“I suspect as those guidelines are transmitted to primary care colleagues who are doing the bulk of the prescribing we’ll see more and more uptake of these agents.”

Indeed, Dr. Flory said, “The metformin data at this point are very dated and the body of trials showing health benefits for it is actually very weak compared to the big trials that have been done for the newer agents, to the point where you can imagine a consensus gradually forming where people start to recommend something other than metformin for nearly everybody with type 2 diabetes. The cost implications are just huge, and I think the safety implications as well.”

According to Dr. Flory, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are fundamentally not as safe as metformin. I think they’re very safe drugs – large good studies have established that – but if you’re going to give drugs to a large number of people who are pretty healthy at baseline the safety standards have to be pretty high.”

Just the elevated risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis alone is reason for pause, Dr. Flory said. “Even though it’s manageable ... metformin just doesn’t have a safety problem like that. I’m very comfortable prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, but If I’m going to give a drug to a million people and have nothing go wrong with any of them, that would be metformin, not an SGLT2 [inhibitor].”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues will be conducting a follow-up of prescribing data through 2019, which will of course include the newer agents. They’ll also investigate reasons for drug discontinuation and outcomes of those who discontinue versus continue metformin.

Dr. Campbell has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Flory consults for a legal firm on litigation related to insulin analog pricing issues, not for or pertaining to a specific company.

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

Nearly half of adults prescribed metformin after a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes have stopped taking it by 1 year, new data show.

SDI Productions/E+

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of administrative data from Alberta, Canada, during 2012-2017, also show that the fall-off in metformin adherence was most dramatic during the first 30 days, and in most cases, there was no concomitant substitution of another glucose-lowering drug.

While the majority with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were prescribed metformin as first-line therapy, patients started on other agents incurred far higher medication and health care costs.

The data were recently published online in Diabetic Medicine by David J. T. Campbell, MD, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.), and colleagues.

“We realized that even if someone is prescribed metformin that doesn’t mean they’re staying on metformin even for a year ... the drop-off rate is really quite abrupt,” Dr. Campbell said in an interview. Most who discontinued had A1c levels above 7.5%, so it wasn’t that they no longer needed glucose-lowering medication, he noted.
 

People don’t understand chronic use; meds don’t make you feel better

One reason for the discontinuations, he said, is that patients might not realize they need to keep taking the medication.

“When a physician is seeing a person with newly diagnosed diabetes, I think it’s important to remember that they might not know the implications of having a chronic condition. A lot of times we’re quick to prescribe metformin and forget about it. ... Physicians might write a script for 3 months and three refills and not see the patient again for a year ... We may need to keep a closer eye on these folks and have more regular follow-up, and make sure they’re getting early diabetes education.”

Side effects are an issue, but not for most. “Any clinician who prescribes metformin knows there are side effects, such as upset stomach, diarrhea, and nausea. But certainly, it’s not half [who experience these]. ... A lot of people just aren’t accepting of having to take it lifelong, especially since they probably don’t feel any better on it,” Dr. Campbell said.  

James Flory, MD, an endocrinologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said in an interview that about 25% of patients taking metformin experience gastrointestinal side effects.

Moreover, he noted that the drop-off in adherence is also seen with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs that have fewer side effects than those of metformin. He pointed to a “striking example” of this, a 2011 randomized trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and as reported by this news organization, showing overall rates of adherence to these medications was around 50%, even among people who had already had a myocardial infarction.   

“People really don’t want to be on these medications. ... They have an aversion to being medicalized and taking pills. If they’re not being pretty consistently prompted and reminded and urged to take them, I think people will find rationalizations, reasons for stopping. ... I think people want to handle things through lifestyle and not be on a drug,” noted Dr. Flory, who has published on the subject of metformin adherence.

“These drugs don’t make people feel better. None of them do. At best they don’t make you feel worse. You have to really believe in the chronic condition and believe that it’s hurting you and that you can’t handle it without the drugs to motivate you to keep taking them,” Dr. Flory explained.

Communication with the patient is key, he added.

“I don’t have empirical data to support this, but I feel it’s helpful to acknowledge the downsides to patients. I tell them to let me know [if they’re having side effects] and we’ll work on it. Don’t just stop taking the drug and never circle back.” At the same time, he added, “I think it’s important to emphasize metformin’s safety and effectiveness.”

For patients experiencing gastrointestinal side effects, options including switching to extended-release metformin or lowering the dose.

Also, while patients are typically advised to take metformin with food, some experience diarrhea when they do that and prefer to take it at bedtime than with dinner. “If that’s what works for people, that’s what they should do,” Dr. Flory advised.

“It doesn’t take a lot of time to emphasize to patients the safety and this level of flexibility and control they should be able to exercise over how much they take and when. These things should really help.”  
 

Metformin usually prescribed, but not always taken

Dr. Campbell and colleagues analyzed 17,932 individuals with incident type 2 diabetes diagnosed between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Overall, 89% received metformin monotherapy as their initial diabetes prescription, 7.6% started metformin in combination with another glucose-lowering drug, and 3.3% were prescribed a nonmetformin diabetes medication. (Those prescribed insulin as their first diabetes medication were excluded.) 

The most commonly coprescribed drugs with metformin were sulfonylureas (in 47%) and DPP-4 inhibitors (28%). Of those initiated with only nonmetformin medications, sulfonylureas were also the most common (53%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors second (21%).

The metformin prescribing rate of 89% reflects current guidelines, Dr. Campbell noted.

“In hypertension, clinicians weren’t really following the guidelines ... they were prescribing more expensive drugs than the guidelines say. ... We showed that in diabetes, contrary to hypertension, clinicians really are generally following the clinical practice guidelines. ... The vast majority who are started on metformin are started on monotherapy. That was reassuring to us. We’re not paying for a bunch of expensive drugs when metformin would do just as well,” he said.

However, the proportion who had been dispensed metformin to cover the prescribed number of days dropped by about 10% after 30 days, by a further 10% after 90 days, and yet again after 100 days, resulting in just 54% remaining on the drug by 1 year.

Factors associated with higher adherence included older age, presence of comorbidities, and highest versus lowest neighborhood income quintile.

Those who had been prescribed nonmetformin monotherapy had about twice the total health care costs of those initially prescribed metformin monotherapy. Higher health care costs were seen among patients who were younger, had lower incomes, had higher baseline A1c, had more comorbidities, and were men.

How will the newer type 2 diabetes drugs change prescribing?

Dr. Campbell noted that “a lot has changed since 2017. ... At least in Canada, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were supposed to be reserved as second-line agents in patients with cardiovascular disease, but more and more they’re being thought of as first-line agents in high-risk patients.”

“I suspect as those guidelines are transmitted to primary care colleagues who are doing the bulk of the prescribing we’ll see more and more uptake of these agents.”

Indeed, Dr. Flory said, “The metformin data at this point are very dated and the body of trials showing health benefits for it is actually very weak compared to the big trials that have been done for the newer agents, to the point where you can imagine a consensus gradually forming where people start to recommend something other than metformin for nearly everybody with type 2 diabetes. The cost implications are just huge, and I think the safety implications as well.”

According to Dr. Flory, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are fundamentally not as safe as metformin. I think they’re very safe drugs – large good studies have established that – but if you’re going to give drugs to a large number of people who are pretty healthy at baseline the safety standards have to be pretty high.”

Just the elevated risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis alone is reason for pause, Dr. Flory said. “Even though it’s manageable ... metformin just doesn’t have a safety problem like that. I’m very comfortable prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, but If I’m going to give a drug to a million people and have nothing go wrong with any of them, that would be metformin, not an SGLT2 [inhibitor].”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues will be conducting a follow-up of prescribing data through 2019, which will of course include the newer agents. They’ll also investigate reasons for drug discontinuation and outcomes of those who discontinue versus continue metformin.

Dr. Campbell has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Flory consults for a legal firm on litigation related to insulin analog pricing issues, not for or pertaining to a specific company.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the FreeStyle Libre 2 iOS application for use with compatible iPhones.

The new app works with the FreeStyle Libre 2 with optional glucose alarms, which was approved in the United States in June 2020 for people with diabetes aged 4 years and older.

Until now, it was only a reader device with no app compatibility. The older FreeStyle Libre 14-day, available in the United States since July 2018, has both a reader and an app, but not optional alarms.

The new app, which will soon be available for download from the App Store, enables users to view glucose readings on their iPhones and allows for caregivers or other individuals to remotely monitor the patient’s glucose levels and receive real-time alarms via the LibreLinkUp app.

Worn for 14 days before replacement is needed, the FreeStyle Libre 2 is the longest-lasting integrated continuous glucose monitoring (iCGM) sensor currently on the market. The first iCGM, the Dexcom G6, is worn for 10 days.

The Libre 2 is available at pharmacies, typically at a lower cost than other CGM systems based on a list price comparison. The actual cost for patients varies depending on insurance coverage.

Abbott has secured partial or full reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system in 38 countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 is approved for use in the European Union.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the FreeStyle Libre 2 iOS application for use with compatible iPhones.

The new app works with the FreeStyle Libre 2 with optional glucose alarms, which was approved in the United States in June 2020 for people with diabetes aged 4 years and older.

Until now, it was only a reader device with no app compatibility. The older FreeStyle Libre 14-day, available in the United States since July 2018, has both a reader and an app, but not optional alarms.

The new app, which will soon be available for download from the App Store, enables users to view glucose readings on their iPhones and allows for caregivers or other individuals to remotely monitor the patient’s glucose levels and receive real-time alarms via the LibreLinkUp app.

Worn for 14 days before replacement is needed, the FreeStyle Libre 2 is the longest-lasting integrated continuous glucose monitoring (iCGM) sensor currently on the market. The first iCGM, the Dexcom G6, is worn for 10 days.

The Libre 2 is available at pharmacies, typically at a lower cost than other CGM systems based on a list price comparison. The actual cost for patients varies depending on insurance coverage.

Abbott has secured partial or full reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system in 38 countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 is approved for use in the European Union.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the FreeStyle Libre 2 iOS application for use with compatible iPhones.

The new app works with the FreeStyle Libre 2 with optional glucose alarms, which was approved in the United States in June 2020 for people with diabetes aged 4 years and older.

Until now, it was only a reader device with no app compatibility. The older FreeStyle Libre 14-day, available in the United States since July 2018, has both a reader and an app, but not optional alarms.

The new app, which will soon be available for download from the App Store, enables users to view glucose readings on their iPhones and allows for caregivers or other individuals to remotely monitor the patient’s glucose levels and receive real-time alarms via the LibreLinkUp app.

Worn for 14 days before replacement is needed, the FreeStyle Libre 2 is the longest-lasting integrated continuous glucose monitoring (iCGM) sensor currently on the market. The first iCGM, the Dexcom G6, is worn for 10 days.

The Libre 2 is available at pharmacies, typically at a lower cost than other CGM systems based on a list price comparison. The actual cost for patients varies depending on insurance coverage.

Abbott has secured partial or full reimbursement for the FreeStyle Libre system in 38 countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 is approved for use in the European Union.

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

Having more diverse gut bacteria (greater microbiome richness) and specifically a greater abundance of 12 types of butyrate-producing bacteria were both associated with less insulin resistance and less type 2 diabetes, in a population-based observational study from the Netherlands.

Several studies have reported that there is less microbiome diversity in type 2 diabetes, Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues note.

Their study also identified a dozen types of bacteria that ferment dietary fiber (undigested carbohydrates) in the gut to produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, which may play a role in protection against type 2 diabetes.

“The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively investigate the associations between gut microbiome composition [and] type 2 diabetes in a large population-based sample … which we adjusted for a series of key confounders,” the researchers write.

“These findings suggest that higher gut microbial diversity, along with specifically more butyrate-producing bacteria, may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, which may help guide future prevention and treatment strategies,” they conclude in their study published online July 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Confirmation of previous work, plus some new findings

The study confirms what many smaller ones have repeatedly shown – that low gut microbiome diversity is associated with increased risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes, Nanette I. Steinle, MD, RDN, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

A diet rich in fiber and prebiotics promotes gut biome diversity, added Dr. Steinle, chief of the endocrinology and diabetes section at Maryland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Baltimore.

The findings add to other research, she noted, such as a prospective trial in which a high-fiber diet induced changes in the gut microbe that were linked to better glycemic regulation (Science. 2018;359:1151-6) and a study of a promising probiotic formula to treat diabetes.

“An important next step,” according to Dr. Steinle, “is to provide interventions like healthy diet or specific fiber types to see what can be done to produce lasting shifts in the gut microbiome and if these shifts result in improved metabolic health.”

Natalia Shulzhenko, MD, PhD, said: “Some of associations of taxa [bacteria groupings] with type 2 diabetes reported by this study are new.”

Dr. Shulzhenko and colleagues recently published a review of the role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology that summarized evidence from 42 human studies as well as preclinical studies and clinical trials of probiotic treatments (EBioMedicine. 2020;51:102590).

“Besides adding new microbes to the list of potential pathobionts [organisms that can cause harm] and beneficial microbes for type 2 diabetes,” the findings by Dr. Chen and colleagues “support a notion that different members of the gut microbial community may have similar effects on type 2 diabetes in different individuals,” commonly known as “functional redundancy,” Dr. Shulzhenko, associate professor, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pointed out in an email.

Also “in line with previous studies,” the study shows that butyrate-producing bacteria are associated with type 2 diabetes.

She speculated that “these results will probably contribute to the body of knowledge that is needed to develop microbiota-based therapy and diagnostics.”
 

Which gut bacteria are linked with diabetes?

It is unclear which gut bacteria are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Chen and colleagues write.

To investigate this, they identified 1,418 participants from the Rotterdam Study and 748 participants from the LifeLines-DEEP study enrolled from January 2018 to December 2020. Of these participants, 193 had type 2 diabetes.

The participants provided stool samples that were used to measure gut microbiome composition using the 16S ribosomal RNA method. They also had blood tests to measure glucose and insulin, and researchers collected other demographic and medical data.

Participants in the Rotterdam study were older than in the LifeLines Deep study (mean age, 62 vs. 45 years). Both cohorts included slightly more men than women (58%).

Dr. Chen and colleagues identified 126 (bacteria) genera in the gut microbiome in the Rotterdam study and 184 genera in the LifeLines Deep study.

After correcting for age, sex, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol intake, daily calories, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication or proton pump inhibitors, higher microbiome diversity was associated with lower insulin resistance and a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

A higher abundance of each of seven types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Christensenellaceae, Christensenellaceae R7 group, Marvinbryantia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-005, Ruminococcaceae UCG-008, Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, and Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group – was associated with lower insulin resistance, after adjusting for confounders such as diet and medications (all P < .001).

And a higher abundance of each of five other types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Clostridiaceae 1, Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Intestinibacter, and Romboutsia – was associated with less type 2 diabetes (all P < .001). 

Study limitations include that gut microbiome composition was determined from stool (fecal) samples, whereas the actual composition varies in different locations along the intestine, and the study also lacked information about butyrate concentrations in stool or blood, the researchers note.

They call for “future research [to] validate the hypothesis of butyrate-producing bacteria affecting glucose metabolism and diabetes risk via production of butyrate.”

The authors and Dr. Shulzhenko have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinle has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and conducting a study funded by Kowa through the VA.

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

Having more diverse gut bacteria (greater microbiome richness) and specifically a greater abundance of 12 types of butyrate-producing bacteria were both associated with less insulin resistance and less type 2 diabetes, in a population-based observational study from the Netherlands.

Several studies have reported that there is less microbiome diversity in type 2 diabetes, Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues note.

Their study also identified a dozen types of bacteria that ferment dietary fiber (undigested carbohydrates) in the gut to produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, which may play a role in protection against type 2 diabetes.

“The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively investigate the associations between gut microbiome composition [and] type 2 diabetes in a large population-based sample … which we adjusted for a series of key confounders,” the researchers write.

“These findings suggest that higher gut microbial diversity, along with specifically more butyrate-producing bacteria, may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, which may help guide future prevention and treatment strategies,” they conclude in their study published online July 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Confirmation of previous work, plus some new findings

The study confirms what many smaller ones have repeatedly shown – that low gut microbiome diversity is associated with increased risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes, Nanette I. Steinle, MD, RDN, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

A diet rich in fiber and prebiotics promotes gut biome diversity, added Dr. Steinle, chief of the endocrinology and diabetes section at Maryland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Baltimore.

The findings add to other research, she noted, such as a prospective trial in which a high-fiber diet induced changes in the gut microbe that were linked to better glycemic regulation (Science. 2018;359:1151-6) and a study of a promising probiotic formula to treat diabetes.

“An important next step,” according to Dr. Steinle, “is to provide interventions like healthy diet or specific fiber types to see what can be done to produce lasting shifts in the gut microbiome and if these shifts result in improved metabolic health.”

Natalia Shulzhenko, MD, PhD, said: “Some of associations of taxa [bacteria groupings] with type 2 diabetes reported by this study are new.”

Dr. Shulzhenko and colleagues recently published a review of the role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology that summarized evidence from 42 human studies as well as preclinical studies and clinical trials of probiotic treatments (EBioMedicine. 2020;51:102590).

“Besides adding new microbes to the list of potential pathobionts [organisms that can cause harm] and beneficial microbes for type 2 diabetes,” the findings by Dr. Chen and colleagues “support a notion that different members of the gut microbial community may have similar effects on type 2 diabetes in different individuals,” commonly known as “functional redundancy,” Dr. Shulzhenko, associate professor, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pointed out in an email.

Also “in line with previous studies,” the study shows that butyrate-producing bacteria are associated with type 2 diabetes.

She speculated that “these results will probably contribute to the body of knowledge that is needed to develop microbiota-based therapy and diagnostics.”
 

Which gut bacteria are linked with diabetes?

It is unclear which gut bacteria are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Chen and colleagues write.

To investigate this, they identified 1,418 participants from the Rotterdam Study and 748 participants from the LifeLines-DEEP study enrolled from January 2018 to December 2020. Of these participants, 193 had type 2 diabetes.

The participants provided stool samples that were used to measure gut microbiome composition using the 16S ribosomal RNA method. They also had blood tests to measure glucose and insulin, and researchers collected other demographic and medical data.

Participants in the Rotterdam study were older than in the LifeLines Deep study (mean age, 62 vs. 45 years). Both cohorts included slightly more men than women (58%).

Dr. Chen and colleagues identified 126 (bacteria) genera in the gut microbiome in the Rotterdam study and 184 genera in the LifeLines Deep study.

After correcting for age, sex, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol intake, daily calories, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication or proton pump inhibitors, higher microbiome diversity was associated with lower insulin resistance and a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

A higher abundance of each of seven types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Christensenellaceae, Christensenellaceae R7 group, Marvinbryantia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-005, Ruminococcaceae UCG-008, Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, and Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group – was associated with lower insulin resistance, after adjusting for confounders such as diet and medications (all P < .001).

And a higher abundance of each of five other types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Clostridiaceae 1, Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Intestinibacter, and Romboutsia – was associated with less type 2 diabetes (all P < .001). 

Study limitations include that gut microbiome composition was determined from stool (fecal) samples, whereas the actual composition varies in different locations along the intestine, and the study also lacked information about butyrate concentrations in stool or blood, the researchers note.

They call for “future research [to] validate the hypothesis of butyrate-producing bacteria affecting glucose metabolism and diabetes risk via production of butyrate.”

The authors and Dr. Shulzhenko have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinle has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and conducting a study funded by Kowa through the VA.

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

Having more diverse gut bacteria (greater microbiome richness) and specifically a greater abundance of 12 types of butyrate-producing bacteria were both associated with less insulin resistance and less type 2 diabetes, in a population-based observational study from the Netherlands.

Several studies have reported that there is less microbiome diversity in type 2 diabetes, Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues note.

Their study also identified a dozen types of bacteria that ferment dietary fiber (undigested carbohydrates) in the gut to produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, which may play a role in protection against type 2 diabetes.

“The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively investigate the associations between gut microbiome composition [and] type 2 diabetes in a large population-based sample … which we adjusted for a series of key confounders,” the researchers write.

“These findings suggest that higher gut microbial diversity, along with specifically more butyrate-producing bacteria, may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, which may help guide future prevention and treatment strategies,” they conclude in their study published online July 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Confirmation of previous work, plus some new findings

The study confirms what many smaller ones have repeatedly shown – that low gut microbiome diversity is associated with increased risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes, Nanette I. Steinle, MD, RDN, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

A diet rich in fiber and prebiotics promotes gut biome diversity, added Dr. Steinle, chief of the endocrinology and diabetes section at Maryland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Baltimore.

The findings add to other research, she noted, such as a prospective trial in which a high-fiber diet induced changes in the gut microbe that were linked to better glycemic regulation (Science. 2018;359:1151-6) and a study of a promising probiotic formula to treat diabetes.

“An important next step,” according to Dr. Steinle, “is to provide interventions like healthy diet or specific fiber types to see what can be done to produce lasting shifts in the gut microbiome and if these shifts result in improved metabolic health.”

Natalia Shulzhenko, MD, PhD, said: “Some of associations of taxa [bacteria groupings] with type 2 diabetes reported by this study are new.”

Dr. Shulzhenko and colleagues recently published a review of the role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology that summarized evidence from 42 human studies as well as preclinical studies and clinical trials of probiotic treatments (EBioMedicine. 2020;51:102590).

“Besides adding new microbes to the list of potential pathobionts [organisms that can cause harm] and beneficial microbes for type 2 diabetes,” the findings by Dr. Chen and colleagues “support a notion that different members of the gut microbial community may have similar effects on type 2 diabetes in different individuals,” commonly known as “functional redundancy,” Dr. Shulzhenko, associate professor, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pointed out in an email.

Also “in line with previous studies,” the study shows that butyrate-producing bacteria are associated with type 2 diabetes.

She speculated that “these results will probably contribute to the body of knowledge that is needed to develop microbiota-based therapy and diagnostics.”
 

Which gut bacteria are linked with diabetes?

It is unclear which gut bacteria are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Chen and colleagues write.

To investigate this, they identified 1,418 participants from the Rotterdam Study and 748 participants from the LifeLines-DEEP study enrolled from January 2018 to December 2020. Of these participants, 193 had type 2 diabetes.

The participants provided stool samples that were used to measure gut microbiome composition using the 16S ribosomal RNA method. They also had blood tests to measure glucose and insulin, and researchers collected other demographic and medical data.

Participants in the Rotterdam study were older than in the LifeLines Deep study (mean age, 62 vs. 45 years). Both cohorts included slightly more men than women (58%).

Dr. Chen and colleagues identified 126 (bacteria) genera in the gut microbiome in the Rotterdam study and 184 genera in the LifeLines Deep study.

After correcting for age, sex, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol intake, daily calories, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication or proton pump inhibitors, higher microbiome diversity was associated with lower insulin resistance and a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

A higher abundance of each of seven types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Christensenellaceae, Christensenellaceae R7 group, Marvinbryantia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-005, Ruminococcaceae UCG-008, Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, and Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group – was associated with lower insulin resistance, after adjusting for confounders such as diet and medications (all P < .001).

And a higher abundance of each of five other types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Clostridiaceae 1, Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Intestinibacter, and Romboutsia – was associated with less type 2 diabetes (all P < .001). 

Study limitations include that gut microbiome composition was determined from stool (fecal) samples, whereas the actual composition varies in different locations along the intestine, and the study also lacked information about butyrate concentrations in stool or blood, the researchers note.

They call for “future research [to] validate the hypothesis of butyrate-producing bacteria affecting glucose metabolism and diabetes risk via production of butyrate.”

The authors and Dr. Shulzhenko have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinle has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and conducting a study funded by Kowa through the VA.

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

The long list of side effects that follow ads for newer expensive drugs to treat type 2 diabetes sometimes include an unusual warning: They might cause weight loss. That side effect is one that many people – especially those with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity – may desperately want.

So it’s no surprise that some of the same drugs are being reformulated and renamed by manufacturers as a new obesity treatment. No longer limited to the crowded field of treatments for type 2 diabetes, which affects about 10% of Americans, they join the far smaller number of drugs for obesity, which affects 42% of Americans and is ready to be mined for profit.

One that recently hit the market – winning Food and Drug Administration approval in June – is Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (semaglutide), a higher-dose version of the company’s injectable diabetes drug, Ozempic.

Ozempic’s peppy ads suggest that people who use it might lose weight, but also include a disclaimer: that it “is not a weight-loss drug.” Now – with a new name – it is. And clinical trials showed using it leads to significant weight loss for many patients.

“People who go on this medication lose more weight than with any drug we’ve seen, ever,” said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved with any of the clinical trials.

But that leaves employers and insurers in the uncomfortable position of deciding if it’s worth it.

Wegovy’s monthly wholesale price tag – set at $1,349 – is about 58% more than Ozempic’s, although, the company pointed out, the drug’s injector pens contain more than twice as much of the active ingredient. Studies so far show that patients may need to take it indefinitely to maintain weight loss, translating to a tab that could top $323,000 over 20 years at the current price. Weight-loss treatments are not universally covered by insurance policies.

The arrival of this new class of weight-loss drugs – one from Lilly may soon follow – has created a thicket of issues for those who will pay for them. The decision is complicated by many unknowables concerning their long-term use and whether competition might eventually lower the price.

“The metric we try to use is value,” said James Gelfand, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large, self-insured employers. “If we pay for this drug, how much is this going to cost and how much value will it provide to the beneficiaries?”

Weight-loss treatments have had a lackluster past in this regard, with only modest results. Many employers and insurers likely remember Fen-Phen, a combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine that was pulled from the market in the late 1990s for causing heart valve problems.

New drugs like Wegovy, more effective but also pricier than previous weight-loss treatments, will add more fuel to that debate.

Past treatments were shown to prompt weight loss in the range of 5%-10% of body weight. But many had relatively serious or unpleasant side effects.

Wegovy, however, helped patients lose an average of 15% of their body weight over 68 weeks in the main clinical trial that led to its approval. A comparison group that got a placebo injection lost an average of 2.5% over the same period. On the high end, nearly a third of patients in the treatment group lost 20% or more. Both groups had counseling on diet and exercise.

Side effects, generally considered mild, included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. A few patients developed pancreatitis, a serious inflammation of the pancreas. Like the diabetes medication, the drug carries a warning about a potential risk of a type of thyroid cancer.

Weight loss in those taking Wegovy puts it close to the 20%-25% losses seen with bariatric surgery, said Stanford, and well above the 3%-4% seen with diet and other lifestyle changes alone.

Participants also saw reductions in their waistlines and improvements in their blood pressure and blood sugar levels, which may mean they won’t develop diabetes, said Sean Wharton, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor at York University in Toronto who was among the coauthors of the report outlining the results of the first clinical trial on Wegovy.

Since weight loss is known to reduce the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure and diabetes, might the new drug type be worth it?

Covering such treatment would be a sea change for Medicare, which specifically bars coverage for obesity medications or drugs for “anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain,” although it does pay for bariatric surgery. Pharmaceutical companies, patient advocates, and some medical professionals are backing proposed federal legislation to allow coverage. But the legislation, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, has not made progress despite being reintroduced every year since 2012, and sponsors are now asking federal officials instead to rewrite existing rules.

Private insurers will have to consider a cost-benefit analysis of adding Wegovy to their list of covered treatments, either broadly or with limits. Obesity was first recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, easing the path for insurance coverage, in 2013.

“Employers are going to have a bit of a challenge” deciding whether to add the benefit to insurance offerings, said Steve Pearson, founder and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which provides cost-benefit analyses of medical treatments but has not yet looked at Wegovy.

The trade-offs are embodied in patients like Phylander Pannell, a 49-year-old Largo, Md., woman who said she lost 65 pounds in a clinical trial of Wegovy. That study gave the drug to all participants for the first 20 weeks, then randomly assigned patients to get either the drug or a placebo for the next 48 weeks to determine what happens when the medication is stopped. Only after the trial ended did she find out she was in the treatment group the entire time.

Her weight fell slowly at first, then ramped up, eventually bringing her 190-pound frame down to about 125. Pains in her joints eased; she felt better all around.

“I definitely feel the drug was it for me,” said Ms. Pannell, who also followed the trial’s guidance on diet and exercise.

The study found that both groups lost weight in the initial 20 weeks, but those who continued to get the drug lost an additional average of 7.9% of their body weight. Those who got a placebo gained back nearly 7%.

After the trial ended, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Pannell regained some weight and is now at 155. She is eager to get back on the medication and hopes her job-based insurance will cover it.

Many employers do cover obesity drugs. For example, about 40% of private employer plans include Novo Nordisk’s once-daily injection called Saxenda on their health plans, said Michael Bachner, Novo Nordisk’s director of media relations.

He said the $1,349-a-month wholesale acquisition price of Wegovy was determined by making it equivalent to that of Saxenda, which is less effective.

Still, that is more than the $851 monthly wholesale price of Ozempic. But, he pointed out, the recommended dosage of Wegovy is more than twice that of Ozempic. Four milligrams come in the Ozempic injector pens for the month, while Wegovy has 9.6.

“There’s more drug in the pen,” Mr. Bachner said. “That drives the price up.”

He added: “This is not a 20-year-old drug that we now have a new indication for and are pricing it higher. It’s a whole different clinical program,” which required new trials.

Now scientists, employers, physicians, and patients will have to decide whether the new drugs are worth it.

Earlier estimates – some commissioned by Novo Nordisk – of the potential cost of adding an obesity drug benefit to Medicare showed an overall reduction in spending when better health from the resulting weight loss was factored in.

Still, those earlier estimates considered much less expensive drugs, including a range of generic and branded drugs costing as little as $7 a month to more than $300, a small fraction of Wegovy’s cost.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The long list of side effects that follow ads for newer expensive drugs to treat type 2 diabetes sometimes include an unusual warning: They might cause weight loss. That side effect is one that many people – especially those with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity – may desperately want.

So it’s no surprise that some of the same drugs are being reformulated and renamed by manufacturers as a new obesity treatment. No longer limited to the crowded field of treatments for type 2 diabetes, which affects about 10% of Americans, they join the far smaller number of drugs for obesity, which affects 42% of Americans and is ready to be mined for profit.

One that recently hit the market – winning Food and Drug Administration approval in June – is Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (semaglutide), a higher-dose version of the company’s injectable diabetes drug, Ozempic.

Ozempic’s peppy ads suggest that people who use it might lose weight, but also include a disclaimer: that it “is not a weight-loss drug.” Now – with a new name – it is. And clinical trials showed using it leads to significant weight loss for many patients.

“People who go on this medication lose more weight than with any drug we’ve seen, ever,” said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved with any of the clinical trials.

But that leaves employers and insurers in the uncomfortable position of deciding if it’s worth it.

Wegovy’s monthly wholesale price tag – set at $1,349 – is about 58% more than Ozempic’s, although, the company pointed out, the drug’s injector pens contain more than twice as much of the active ingredient. Studies so far show that patients may need to take it indefinitely to maintain weight loss, translating to a tab that could top $323,000 over 20 years at the current price. Weight-loss treatments are not universally covered by insurance policies.

The arrival of this new class of weight-loss drugs – one from Lilly may soon follow – has created a thicket of issues for those who will pay for them. The decision is complicated by many unknowables concerning their long-term use and whether competition might eventually lower the price.

“The metric we try to use is value,” said James Gelfand, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large, self-insured employers. “If we pay for this drug, how much is this going to cost and how much value will it provide to the beneficiaries?”

Weight-loss treatments have had a lackluster past in this regard, with only modest results. Many employers and insurers likely remember Fen-Phen, a combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine that was pulled from the market in the late 1990s for causing heart valve problems.

New drugs like Wegovy, more effective but also pricier than previous weight-loss treatments, will add more fuel to that debate.

Past treatments were shown to prompt weight loss in the range of 5%-10% of body weight. But many had relatively serious or unpleasant side effects.

Wegovy, however, helped patients lose an average of 15% of their body weight over 68 weeks in the main clinical trial that led to its approval. A comparison group that got a placebo injection lost an average of 2.5% over the same period. On the high end, nearly a third of patients in the treatment group lost 20% or more. Both groups had counseling on diet and exercise.

Side effects, generally considered mild, included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. A few patients developed pancreatitis, a serious inflammation of the pancreas. Like the diabetes medication, the drug carries a warning about a potential risk of a type of thyroid cancer.

Weight loss in those taking Wegovy puts it close to the 20%-25% losses seen with bariatric surgery, said Stanford, and well above the 3%-4% seen with diet and other lifestyle changes alone.

Participants also saw reductions in their waistlines and improvements in their blood pressure and blood sugar levels, which may mean they won’t develop diabetes, said Sean Wharton, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor at York University in Toronto who was among the coauthors of the report outlining the results of the first clinical trial on Wegovy.

Since weight loss is known to reduce the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure and diabetes, might the new drug type be worth it?

Covering such treatment would be a sea change for Medicare, which specifically bars coverage for obesity medications or drugs for “anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain,” although it does pay for bariatric surgery. Pharmaceutical companies, patient advocates, and some medical professionals are backing proposed federal legislation to allow coverage. But the legislation, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, has not made progress despite being reintroduced every year since 2012, and sponsors are now asking federal officials instead to rewrite existing rules.

Private insurers will have to consider a cost-benefit analysis of adding Wegovy to their list of covered treatments, either broadly or with limits. Obesity was first recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, easing the path for insurance coverage, in 2013.

“Employers are going to have a bit of a challenge” deciding whether to add the benefit to insurance offerings, said Steve Pearson, founder and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which provides cost-benefit analyses of medical treatments but has not yet looked at Wegovy.

The trade-offs are embodied in patients like Phylander Pannell, a 49-year-old Largo, Md., woman who said she lost 65 pounds in a clinical trial of Wegovy. That study gave the drug to all participants for the first 20 weeks, then randomly assigned patients to get either the drug or a placebo for the next 48 weeks to determine what happens when the medication is stopped. Only after the trial ended did she find out she was in the treatment group the entire time.

Her weight fell slowly at first, then ramped up, eventually bringing her 190-pound frame down to about 125. Pains in her joints eased; she felt better all around.

“I definitely feel the drug was it for me,” said Ms. Pannell, who also followed the trial’s guidance on diet and exercise.

The study found that both groups lost weight in the initial 20 weeks, but those who continued to get the drug lost an additional average of 7.9% of their body weight. Those who got a placebo gained back nearly 7%.

After the trial ended, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Pannell regained some weight and is now at 155. She is eager to get back on the medication and hopes her job-based insurance will cover it.

Many employers do cover obesity drugs. For example, about 40% of private employer plans include Novo Nordisk’s once-daily injection called Saxenda on their health plans, said Michael Bachner, Novo Nordisk’s director of media relations.

He said the $1,349-a-month wholesale acquisition price of Wegovy was determined by making it equivalent to that of Saxenda, which is less effective.

Still, that is more than the $851 monthly wholesale price of Ozempic. But, he pointed out, the recommended dosage of Wegovy is more than twice that of Ozempic. Four milligrams come in the Ozempic injector pens for the month, while Wegovy has 9.6.

“There’s more drug in the pen,” Mr. Bachner said. “That drives the price up.”

He added: “This is not a 20-year-old drug that we now have a new indication for and are pricing it higher. It’s a whole different clinical program,” which required new trials.

Now scientists, employers, physicians, and patients will have to decide whether the new drugs are worth it.

Earlier estimates – some commissioned by Novo Nordisk – of the potential cost of adding an obesity drug benefit to Medicare showed an overall reduction in spending when better health from the resulting weight loss was factored in.

Still, those earlier estimates considered much less expensive drugs, including a range of generic and branded drugs costing as little as $7 a month to more than $300, a small fraction of Wegovy’s cost.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The long list of side effects that follow ads for newer expensive drugs to treat type 2 diabetes sometimes include an unusual warning: They might cause weight loss. That side effect is one that many people – especially those with type 2 diabetes, which is associated with obesity – may desperately want.

So it’s no surprise that some of the same drugs are being reformulated and renamed by manufacturers as a new obesity treatment. No longer limited to the crowded field of treatments for type 2 diabetes, which affects about 10% of Americans, they join the far smaller number of drugs for obesity, which affects 42% of Americans and is ready to be mined for profit.

One that recently hit the market – winning Food and Drug Administration approval in June – is Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (semaglutide), a higher-dose version of the company’s injectable diabetes drug, Ozempic.

Ozempic’s peppy ads suggest that people who use it might lose weight, but also include a disclaimer: that it “is not a weight-loss drug.” Now – with a new name – it is. And clinical trials showed using it leads to significant weight loss for many patients.

“People who go on this medication lose more weight than with any drug we’ve seen, ever,” said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved with any of the clinical trials.

But that leaves employers and insurers in the uncomfortable position of deciding if it’s worth it.

Wegovy’s monthly wholesale price tag – set at $1,349 – is about 58% more than Ozempic’s, although, the company pointed out, the drug’s injector pens contain more than twice as much of the active ingredient. Studies so far show that patients may need to take it indefinitely to maintain weight loss, translating to a tab that could top $323,000 over 20 years at the current price. Weight-loss treatments are not universally covered by insurance policies.

The arrival of this new class of weight-loss drugs – one from Lilly may soon follow – has created a thicket of issues for those who will pay for them. The decision is complicated by many unknowables concerning their long-term use and whether competition might eventually lower the price.

“The metric we try to use is value,” said James Gelfand, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large, self-insured employers. “If we pay for this drug, how much is this going to cost and how much value will it provide to the beneficiaries?”

Weight-loss treatments have had a lackluster past in this regard, with only modest results. Many employers and insurers likely remember Fen-Phen, a combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine that was pulled from the market in the late 1990s for causing heart valve problems.

New drugs like Wegovy, more effective but also pricier than previous weight-loss treatments, will add more fuel to that debate.

Past treatments were shown to prompt weight loss in the range of 5%-10% of body weight. But many had relatively serious or unpleasant side effects.

Wegovy, however, helped patients lose an average of 15% of their body weight over 68 weeks in the main clinical trial that led to its approval. A comparison group that got a placebo injection lost an average of 2.5% over the same period. On the high end, nearly a third of patients in the treatment group lost 20% or more. Both groups had counseling on diet and exercise.

Side effects, generally considered mild, included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. A few patients developed pancreatitis, a serious inflammation of the pancreas. Like the diabetes medication, the drug carries a warning about a potential risk of a type of thyroid cancer.

Weight loss in those taking Wegovy puts it close to the 20%-25% losses seen with bariatric surgery, said Stanford, and well above the 3%-4% seen with diet and other lifestyle changes alone.

Participants also saw reductions in their waistlines and improvements in their blood pressure and blood sugar levels, which may mean they won’t develop diabetes, said Sean Wharton, MD, an internal medicine specialist and adjunct professor at York University in Toronto who was among the coauthors of the report outlining the results of the first clinical trial on Wegovy.

Since weight loss is known to reduce the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure and diabetes, might the new drug type be worth it?

Covering such treatment would be a sea change for Medicare, which specifically bars coverage for obesity medications or drugs for “anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain,” although it does pay for bariatric surgery. Pharmaceutical companies, patient advocates, and some medical professionals are backing proposed federal legislation to allow coverage. But the legislation, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act, has not made progress despite being reintroduced every year since 2012, and sponsors are now asking federal officials instead to rewrite existing rules.

Private insurers will have to consider a cost-benefit analysis of adding Wegovy to their list of covered treatments, either broadly or with limits. Obesity was first recognized as a disease by the American Medical Association, easing the path for insurance coverage, in 2013.

“Employers are going to have a bit of a challenge” deciding whether to add the benefit to insurance offerings, said Steve Pearson, founder and president of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which provides cost-benefit analyses of medical treatments but has not yet looked at Wegovy.

The trade-offs are embodied in patients like Phylander Pannell, a 49-year-old Largo, Md., woman who said she lost 65 pounds in a clinical trial of Wegovy. That study gave the drug to all participants for the first 20 weeks, then randomly assigned patients to get either the drug or a placebo for the next 48 weeks to determine what happens when the medication is stopped. Only after the trial ended did she find out she was in the treatment group the entire time.

Her weight fell slowly at first, then ramped up, eventually bringing her 190-pound frame down to about 125. Pains in her joints eased; she felt better all around.

“I definitely feel the drug was it for me,” said Ms. Pannell, who also followed the trial’s guidance on diet and exercise.

The study found that both groups lost weight in the initial 20 weeks, but those who continued to get the drug lost an additional average of 7.9% of their body weight. Those who got a placebo gained back nearly 7%.

After the trial ended, and the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Ms. Pannell regained some weight and is now at 155. She is eager to get back on the medication and hopes her job-based insurance will cover it.

Many employers do cover obesity drugs. For example, about 40% of private employer plans include Novo Nordisk’s once-daily injection called Saxenda on their health plans, said Michael Bachner, Novo Nordisk’s director of media relations.

He said the $1,349-a-month wholesale acquisition price of Wegovy was determined by making it equivalent to that of Saxenda, which is less effective.

Still, that is more than the $851 monthly wholesale price of Ozempic. But, he pointed out, the recommended dosage of Wegovy is more than twice that of Ozempic. Four milligrams come in the Ozempic injector pens for the month, while Wegovy has 9.6.

“There’s more drug in the pen,” Mr. Bachner said. “That drives the price up.”

He added: “This is not a 20-year-old drug that we now have a new indication for and are pricing it higher. It’s a whole different clinical program,” which required new trials.

Now scientists, employers, physicians, and patients will have to decide whether the new drugs are worth it.

Earlier estimates – some commissioned by Novo Nordisk – of the potential cost of adding an obesity drug benefit to Medicare showed an overall reduction in spending when better health from the resulting weight loss was factored in.

Still, those earlier estimates considered much less expensive drugs, including a range of generic and branded drugs costing as little as $7 a month to more than $300, a small fraction of Wegovy’s cost.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Insulin pump technology has been available since the 1970s. Innovation in insulin pumps has had significant impact on the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). In recent years, automated insulin pump technology (AIP) has proven to be a safe and effective way to treat DM. It has been studied mostly in highly organized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in younger populations with type 1 DM (T1DM).^1-3

One of the challenges in DM care has always been the wide variations in daily plasma glucose concentration that often cause major swings of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Extreme variations in blood glucose have also been linked to adverse outcomes, including poor micro- and macrovascular outcomes.^4,5 AIP technology is a hybrid closed-loop system that attempts to solve this problem by adjusting insulin delivery in response to real-time glucose information from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Glucose measurements are sent to the insulin pump in real time, which uses a specialized algorithm to determine whether insulin delivery should be up-titrated, down-titrated, or suspended.⁶

Several studies have shown that AIP technology reduces glucose variability and increases the percentage of time within the optimal glucose range.^1-3,7 Its safety is especially indicated for patients with long-standing DM who often have hypoglycemia unawareness and recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia.⁷ Safety is the major advantage of the hybrid closed-loop system as long duration of DM makes patients particularly prone to emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia.⁸ Recurrent hypoglycemia also is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in epidemiologic studies.⁹

Safety was the primary endpoint in the pivotal trial in a multicenter clinical study where 124 participants (mean age, 37.8 years; DM duration, 21.7 years; hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c], 7.4%) were monitored for 3 months while using a hybrid closed-loop pump, similar to the one used in our study.¹⁰ Remarkably, there were no device-related episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis. There was even a small but significant difference in HbA_1c (7.4% at baseline, 6.9% at 3 months) and of the time in target range measured by CGM from 66.7% at baseline to 72.2% at 3 months). However, the mean age of the population studied was young (mean age, 37.8 years). It is unclear how these results would translate for a population of older patients with T1DM. Moreover, use of AIP systems have not been systematically tested outside of carefully controlled studies, as it would be in middle-aged veterans followed in outpatient US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics. Such an approach in the context of optimal glucose monitoring combined with use of structured DM education can significantly reduce impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM of long duration.¹¹

This is the first study to assess the feasibility of AIP technology in a real-world population of older veterans with T1DM in terms of safety and acceptability, because AIP has just recently become available for patient care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This group of patients is of particular interest because they have been largely overlooked in earlier studies. They represent an older population with long-standing DM where hypoglycemia unawareness is often recurrent and incapacitating. In addition, long-standing DM makes optimal glycemic control mandatory to prevent microvascular complications.

Methods

In this retrospective review study,, we examined available data in patients with T1DM at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center diabetes clinic in Gainesville, Florida, between March and December of 2018 who agreed to use AIP. In this clinic, the AIP system was offered to T1DM patients when the 4-year warranty of a previous insulin pump expired, they had frequent hypoglycemic events, or they were on multiple daily injections and were proficient with carbohydrate counting and adjusting insulin doses and willing to use an insulin pump. Veterans were trained on AIP use by a certified diabetes educator and pump trainer in sessions that lasted 2 to 4 hours depending on previous experience with AIP. Institutional review board approval was obtained at the University of Florida. 

Demographic and clinical data before and after the initiation of AIP were collected, including standard insulin pump/CGM information for the Medtronic 670G and Guardian 3 Sensor AIPs. Several variables were evaluated, including age, gender, year of DM diagnosis, time of initiation of AIP, HbA_1c, download data (percentage sensor wear, time in automated mode and manual mode, time in/above/below range, bolus information, insulin use, average sensor blood glucose, average meter blood glucose, pump settings), weight, body mass index (BMI), glucose meter information, history of hypoglycemia unawareness.

The primary outcome for this study was safety as assessed by percentage of time below target range on glucose sensor (time below target range is defined as < 70 mg/dL). We also addressed the secondary endpoint of efficacy as the percentage of time in-range defined as blood glucose per glucose sensor of 70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL (efficacy), percentage of glucose sensor wear, and HbA_1c.

Statistics

Comparisons of changes in continuous variables between groups were performed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline levels. Fisher exact test (χ²) and unpaired t test were used to compare group differences at baseline for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, while Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for nonnormally distributed values. Changes in continuous measures within the same group were tested by paired t test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test when applicable. Analyses were performed using Stata 11.0.

Results

Thirty-seven veterans with T1DM using AIPs in 2018 were evaluated at baseline and at follow up visits (Tables 1 and 2). Time frame for follow-up was approximately 3 months, although there was some variation. Of note, the mean weight and BMI corresponded to mostly lean individuals, consistent with the diagnosis of T1DM.

Time below target range hypoglycemia (sensor glucose < 70 mg/dL) remained low at each follow-up visit (both 1.5%). Percentage of time in automated mode increased from first to second follow-up visit after initiation of AIP (41% vs 53%, P = .06). Percentage of sensor wear numerically increased from first to second follow-up visit (75% vs 85%, P = .39), same as time in range, defined as sensor glucose 70 to 180 mg/dL, from first to second follow-up visit (70% vs 73%, P = .09). Time above range, defined as sensor glucose > 180 mg/dL, demonstrated a strong trend toward decreasing between follow-up appointments (29% to 25%; P = .09). HbA_1c decreased from 7.6% to 7.3% (P = .005).

About half of the patients (18 of 37) reported hypoglycemia unawareness before the initiation of the 670G AIP. On follow-up visit 61% (11 of 18) reported significant improvement in awareness. Of the remaining 18 patients who reported normal awareness before automated mode, 17% (3 of 18) described a new onset unawareness.

Discussion

This study evaluated the safety of adopting a new DM technology in the real world of an outpatient VA clinic. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the use of AIP specifically in a population of middle-aged veterans with longstanding T1DM. After a mean 7 months of follow-up, participants accepted AIP use as evidenced by increased sensor wear over time and experienced improvements in DM measures that indicate successful use (ie, time in automated mode, which represents reduced glycemic variability). These results show success of an AIP approach in a demographically older group of patients.

AIP has been shown to have positive effects on glycemic control such as time in target glucose range (goal ≥ 70%). In our relatively small pilot study, there was trend for an improvement in the time in range from the first to second clinical follow-up visit, suggesting true patient involvement with the use of the device. Studies involving overall younger cohorts have proved that AIP technology is safe and efficacious for outpatient management of T1DM.^7,10,12,13 However, they were all conducted under the safety of a research setting, and trials enrolled a younger population believed to adapt with more ease to this new technology. Tauschmann and colleagues performed a multicenter, parallel randomized controlled trial that compared hybrid closed-loop AIP therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with suboptimal T1DM control.¹² Results showed that the hybrid closed-loop system increased the time that the glucose concentration was within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) from 54% in the sensor-augmented pump group to 65% on the closed-loop system (P < .001). A small but significant improvement in HBA_1c (from 8.0 -7.4%) and low rates of hypoglycemia (2.6% of time below 70 mg/dL) were also noted.¹²

A similar benefit was observed in a 2019 landmark study by Brown and colleagues of 168 patients with T1DM at 7 university medical centers who were treated for 6 months with either a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group) in a parallel-group, unblinded, randomized trial study.¹³ Mean (SD) time in the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61% (17) at baseline to 71% (12) during the 6 months. HbA_1c decreased from 7.4 to 7.1% and time ≤ 70 mg/dL was just 1.6%. However, only 13% of patients were aged ≥ 40 years in the study by Tauschmann and colleagues, and mean age was 33 years in the Brown and colleagues study.^12,13 In contrast, the mean (SD) age in our study was 59 (14) years. Our pilot study also showed comparable, or somewhat better results, as mean time in target range was 72%, HbA_1c was 7.3%, and time ≤ 70 mg/dL was just 1.5%.

Limitations

There are some limitations to our study. The small sample size and single-center nature prevent generalization. Also, the veteran population cannot be extrapolated to other populations. For instance, the majority of the patients in this study were male.

Conclusions

We report that an AIP approach for patients with long-standing T1DM is well accepted and engages patients into monitoring their blood sugars and achieving better glycemic control. This was achieved with minimal hypoglycemia in a population where often hypoglycemia unawareness makes DM care a challenge. Future studies within the VHA are needed to fully assess the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of this technology in veterans.

Insulin pump technology has been available since the 1970s. Innovation in insulin pumps has had significant impact on the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). In recent years, automated insulin pump technology (AIP) has proven to be a safe and effective way to treat DM. It has been studied mostly in highly organized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in younger populations with type 1 DM (T1DM).^1-3

One of the challenges in DM care has always been the wide variations in daily plasma glucose concentration that often cause major swings of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Extreme variations in blood glucose have also been linked to adverse outcomes, including poor micro- and macrovascular outcomes.^4,5 AIP technology is a hybrid closed-loop system that attempts to solve this problem by adjusting insulin delivery in response to real-time glucose information from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Glucose measurements are sent to the insulin pump in real time, which uses a specialized algorithm to determine whether insulin delivery should be up-titrated, down-titrated, or suspended.⁶

Several studies have shown that AIP technology reduces glucose variability and increases the percentage of time within the optimal glucose range.^1-3,7 Its safety is especially indicated for patients with long-standing DM who often have hypoglycemia unawareness and recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia.⁷ Safety is the major advantage of the hybrid closed-loop system as long duration of DM makes patients particularly prone to emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia.⁸ Recurrent hypoglycemia also is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in epidemiologic studies.⁹

Safety was the primary endpoint in the pivotal trial in a multicenter clinical study where 124 participants (mean age, 37.8 years; DM duration, 21.7 years; hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c], 7.4%) were monitored for 3 months while using a hybrid closed-loop pump, similar to the one used in our study.¹⁰ Remarkably, there were no device-related episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis. There was even a small but significant difference in HbA_1c (7.4% at baseline, 6.9% at 3 months) and of the time in target range measured by CGM from 66.7% at baseline to 72.2% at 3 months). However, the mean age of the population studied was young (mean age, 37.8 years). It is unclear how these results would translate for a population of older patients with T1DM. Moreover, use of AIP systems have not been systematically tested outside of carefully controlled studies, as it would be in middle-aged veterans followed in outpatient US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics. Such an approach in the context of optimal glucose monitoring combined with use of structured DM education can significantly reduce impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM of long duration.¹¹

This is the first study to assess the feasibility of AIP technology in a real-world population of older veterans with T1DM in terms of safety and acceptability, because AIP has just recently become available for patient care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This group of patients is of particular interest because they have been largely overlooked in earlier studies. They represent an older population with long-standing DM where hypoglycemia unawareness is often recurrent and incapacitating. In addition, long-standing DM makes optimal glycemic control mandatory to prevent microvascular complications.

Methods

In this retrospective review study,, we examined available data in patients with T1DM at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center diabetes clinic in Gainesville, Florida, between March and December of 2018 who agreed to use AIP. In this clinic, the AIP system was offered to T1DM patients when the 4-year warranty of a previous insulin pump expired, they had frequent hypoglycemic events, or they were on multiple daily injections and were proficient with carbohydrate counting and adjusting insulin doses and willing to use an insulin pump. Veterans were trained on AIP use by a certified diabetes educator and pump trainer in sessions that lasted 2 to 4 hours depending on previous experience with AIP. Institutional review board approval was obtained at the University of Florida. 

Demographic and clinical data before and after the initiation of AIP were collected, including standard insulin pump/CGM information for the Medtronic 670G and Guardian 3 Sensor AIPs. Several variables were evaluated, including age, gender, year of DM diagnosis, time of initiation of AIP, HbA_1c, download data (percentage sensor wear, time in automated mode and manual mode, time in/above/below range, bolus information, insulin use, average sensor blood glucose, average meter blood glucose, pump settings), weight, body mass index (BMI), glucose meter information, history of hypoglycemia unawareness.

The primary outcome for this study was safety as assessed by percentage of time below target range on glucose sensor (time below target range is defined as < 70 mg/dL). We also addressed the secondary endpoint of efficacy as the percentage of time in-range defined as blood glucose per glucose sensor of 70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL (efficacy), percentage of glucose sensor wear, and HbA_1c.

Statistics

Comparisons of changes in continuous variables between groups were performed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline levels. Fisher exact test (χ²) and unpaired t test were used to compare group differences at baseline for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, while Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for nonnormally distributed values. Changes in continuous measures within the same group were tested by paired t test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test when applicable. Analyses were performed using Stata 11.0.

Results

Thirty-seven veterans with T1DM using AIPs in 2018 were evaluated at baseline and at follow up visits (Tables 1 and 2). Time frame for follow-up was approximately 3 months, although there was some variation. Of note, the mean weight and BMI corresponded to mostly lean individuals, consistent with the diagnosis of T1DM.

Time below target range hypoglycemia (sensor glucose < 70 mg/dL) remained low at each follow-up visit (both 1.5%). Percentage of time in automated mode increased from first to second follow-up visit after initiation of AIP (41% vs 53%, P = .06). Percentage of sensor wear numerically increased from first to second follow-up visit (75% vs 85%, P = .39), same as time in range, defined as sensor glucose 70 to 180 mg/dL, from first to second follow-up visit (70% vs 73%, P = .09). Time above range, defined as sensor glucose > 180 mg/dL, demonstrated a strong trend toward decreasing between follow-up appointments (29% to 25%; P = .09). HbA_1c decreased from 7.6% to 7.3% (P = .005).

About half of the patients (18 of 37) reported hypoglycemia unawareness before the initiation of the 670G AIP. On follow-up visit 61% (11 of 18) reported significant improvement in awareness. Of the remaining 18 patients who reported normal awareness before automated mode, 17% (3 of 18) described a new onset unawareness.

Discussion

This study evaluated the safety of adopting a new DM technology in the real world of an outpatient VA clinic. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the use of AIP specifically in a population of middle-aged veterans with longstanding T1DM. After a mean 7 months of follow-up, participants accepted AIP use as evidenced by increased sensor wear over time and experienced improvements in DM measures that indicate successful use (ie, time in automated mode, which represents reduced glycemic variability). These results show success of an AIP approach in a demographically older group of patients.

AIP has been shown to have positive effects on glycemic control such as time in target glucose range (goal ≥ 70%). In our relatively small pilot study, there was trend for an improvement in the time in range from the first to second clinical follow-up visit, suggesting true patient involvement with the use of the device. Studies involving overall younger cohorts have proved that AIP technology is safe and efficacious for outpatient management of T1DM.^7,10,12,13 However, they were all conducted under the safety of a research setting, and trials enrolled a younger population believed to adapt with more ease to this new technology. Tauschmann and colleagues performed a multicenter, parallel randomized controlled trial that compared hybrid closed-loop AIP therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with suboptimal T1DM control.¹² Results showed that the hybrid closed-loop system increased the time that the glucose concentration was within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) from 54% in the sensor-augmented pump group to 65% on the closed-loop system (P < .001). A small but significant improvement in HBA_1c (from 8.0 -7.4%) and low rates of hypoglycemia (2.6% of time below 70 mg/dL) were also noted.¹²

A similar benefit was observed in a 2019 landmark study by Brown and colleagues of 168 patients with T1DM at 7 university medical centers who were treated for 6 months with either a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group) in a parallel-group, unblinded, randomized trial study.¹³ Mean (SD) time in the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61% (17) at baseline to 71% (12) during the 6 months. HbA_1c decreased from 7.4 to 7.1% and time ≤ 70 mg/dL was just 1.6%. However, only 13% of patients were aged ≥ 40 years in the study by Tauschmann and colleagues, and mean age was 33 years in the Brown and colleagues study.^12,13 In contrast, the mean (SD) age in our study was 59 (14) years. Our pilot study also showed comparable, or somewhat better results, as mean time in target range was 72%, HbA_1c was 7.3%, and time ≤ 70 mg/dL was just 1.5%.

Limitations

There are some limitations to our study. The small sample size and single-center nature prevent generalization. Also, the veteran population cannot be extrapolated to other populations. For instance, the majority of the patients in this study were male.

Conclusions

We report that an AIP approach for patients with long-standing T1DM is well accepted and engages patients into monitoring their blood sugars and achieving better glycemic control. This was achieved with minimal hypoglycemia in a population where often hypoglycemia unawareness makes DM care a challenge. Future studies within the VHA are needed to fully assess the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of this technology in veterans.

Insulin pump technology has been available since the 1970s. Innovation in insulin pumps has had significant impact on the management of diabetes mellitus (DM). In recent years, automated insulin pump technology (AIP) has proven to be a safe and effective way to treat DM. It has been studied mostly in highly organized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in younger populations with type 1 DM (T1DM).^1-3

One of the challenges in DM care has always been the wide variations in daily plasma glucose concentration that often cause major swings of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Extreme variations in blood glucose have also been linked to adverse outcomes, including poor micro- and macrovascular outcomes.^4,5 AIP technology is a hybrid closed-loop system that attempts to solve this problem by adjusting insulin delivery in response to real-time glucose information from a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). Glucose measurements are sent to the insulin pump in real time, which uses a specialized algorithm to determine whether insulin delivery should be up-titrated, down-titrated, or suspended.⁶

Several studies have shown that AIP technology reduces glucose variability and increases the percentage of time within the optimal glucose range.^1-3,7 Its safety is especially indicated for patients with long-standing DM who often have hypoglycemia unawareness and recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia.⁷ Safety is the major advantage of the hybrid closed-loop system as long duration of DM makes patients particularly prone to emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia.⁸ Recurrent hypoglycemia also is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in epidemiologic studies.⁹

Safety was the primary endpoint in the pivotal trial in a multicenter clinical study where 124 participants (mean age, 37.8 years; DM duration, 21.7 years; hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c], 7.4%) were monitored for 3 months while using a hybrid closed-loop pump, similar to the one used in our study.¹⁰ Remarkably, there were no device-related episodes of severe hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis. There was even a small but significant difference in HbA_1c (7.4% at baseline, 6.9% at 3 months) and of the time in target range measured by CGM from 66.7% at baseline to 72.2% at 3 months). However, the mean age of the population studied was young (mean age, 37.8 years). It is unclear how these results would translate for a population of older patients with T1DM. Moreover, use of AIP systems have not been systematically tested outside of carefully controlled studies, as it would be in middle-aged veterans followed in outpatient US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics. Such an approach in the context of optimal glucose monitoring combined with use of structured DM education can significantly reduce impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM of long duration.¹¹

This is the first study to assess the feasibility of AIP technology in a real-world population of older veterans with T1DM in terms of safety and acceptability, because AIP has just recently become available for patient care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This group of patients is of particular interest because they have been largely overlooked in earlier studies. They represent an older population with long-standing DM where hypoglycemia unawareness is often recurrent and incapacitating. In addition, long-standing DM makes optimal glycemic control mandatory to prevent microvascular complications.

Methods

In this retrospective review study,, we examined available data in patients with T1DM at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center diabetes clinic in Gainesville, Florida, between March and December of 2018 who agreed to use AIP. In this clinic, the AIP system was offered to T1DM patients when the 4-year warranty of a previous insulin pump expired, they had frequent hypoglycemic events, or they were on multiple daily injections and were proficient with carbohydrate counting and adjusting insulin doses and willing to use an insulin pump. Veterans were trained on AIP use by a certified diabetes educator and pump trainer in sessions that lasted 2 to 4 hours depending on previous experience with AIP. Institutional review board approval was obtained at the University of Florida. 

Demographic and clinical data before and after the initiation of AIP were collected, including standard insulin pump/CGM information for the Medtronic 670G and Guardian 3 Sensor AIPs. Several variables were evaluated, including age, gender, year of DM diagnosis, time of initiation of AIP, HbA_1c, download data (percentage sensor wear, time in automated mode and manual mode, time in/above/below range, bolus information, insulin use, average sensor blood glucose, average meter blood glucose, pump settings), weight, body mass index (BMI), glucose meter information, history of hypoglycemia unawareness.

The primary outcome for this study was safety as assessed by percentage of time below target range on glucose sensor (time below target range is defined as < 70 mg/dL). We also addressed the secondary endpoint of efficacy as the percentage of time in-range defined as blood glucose per glucose sensor of 70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL (efficacy), percentage of glucose sensor wear, and HbA_1c.

Statistics

Comparisons of changes in continuous variables between groups were performed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline levels. Fisher exact test (χ²) and unpaired t test were used to compare group differences at baseline for categorical and continuous variables, respectively, while Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for nonnormally distributed values. Changes in continuous measures within the same group were tested by paired t test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test when applicable. Analyses were performed using Stata 11.0.

Results

Thirty-seven veterans with T1DM using AIPs in 2018 were evaluated at baseline and at follow up visits (Tables 1 and 2). Time frame for follow-up was approximately 3 months, although there was some variation. Of note, the mean weight and BMI corresponded to mostly lean individuals, consistent with the diagnosis of T1DM.

Time below target range hypoglycemia (sensor glucose < 70 mg/dL) remained low at each follow-up visit (both 1.5%). Percentage of time in automated mode increased from first to second follow-up visit after initiation of AIP (41% vs 53%, P = .06). Percentage of sensor wear numerically increased from first to second follow-up visit (75% vs 85%, P = .39), same as time in range, defined as sensor glucose 70 to 180 mg/dL, from first to second follow-up visit (70% vs 73%, P = .09). Time above range, defined as sensor glucose > 180 mg/dL, demonstrated a strong trend toward decreasing between follow-up appointments (29% to 25%; P = .09). HbA_1c decreased from 7.6% to 7.3% (P = .005).

About half of the patients (18 of 37) reported hypoglycemia unawareness before the initiation of the 670G AIP. On follow-up visit 61% (11 of 18) reported significant improvement in awareness. Of the remaining 18 patients who reported normal awareness before automated mode, 17% (3 of 18) described a new onset unawareness.

Discussion

This study evaluated the safety of adopting a new DM technology in the real world of an outpatient VA clinic. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the use of AIP specifically in a population of middle-aged veterans with longstanding T1DM. After a mean 7 months of follow-up, participants accepted AIP use as evidenced by increased sensor wear over time and experienced improvements in DM measures that indicate successful use (ie, time in automated mode, which represents reduced glycemic variability). These results show success of an AIP approach in a demographically older group of patients.

AIP has been shown to have positive effects on glycemic control such as time in target glucose range (goal ≥ 70%). In our relatively small pilot study, there was trend for an improvement in the time in range from the first to second clinical follow-up visit, suggesting true patient involvement with the use of the device. Studies involving overall younger cohorts have proved that AIP technology is safe and efficacious for outpatient management of T1DM.^7,10,12,13 However, they were all conducted under the safety of a research setting, and trials enrolled a younger population believed to adapt with more ease to this new technology. Tauschmann and colleagues performed a multicenter, parallel randomized controlled trial that compared hybrid closed-loop AIP therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with suboptimal T1DM control.¹² Results showed that the hybrid closed-loop system increased the time that the glucose concentration was within the target range (70-180 mg/dL) from 54% in the sensor-augmented pump group to 65% on the closed-loop system (P < .001). A small but significant improvement in HBA_1c (from 8.0 -7.4%) and low rates of hypoglycemia (2.6% of time below 70 mg/dL) were also noted.¹²

A similar benefit was observed in a 2019 landmark study by Brown and colleagues of 168 patients with T1DM at 7 university medical centers who were treated for 6 months with either a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group) in a parallel-group, unblinded, randomized trial study.¹³ Mean (SD) time in the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61% (17) at baseline to 71% (12) during the 6 months. HbA_1c decreased from 7.4 to 7.1% and time ≤ 70 mg/dL was just 1.6%. However, only 13% of patients were aged ≥ 40 years in the study by Tauschmann and colleagues, and mean age was 33 years in the Brown and colleagues study.^12,13 In contrast, the mean (SD) age in our study was 59 (14) years. Our pilot study also showed comparable, or somewhat better results, as mean time in target range was 72%, HbA_1c was 7.3%, and time ≤ 70 mg/dL was just 1.5%.

Limitations

There are some limitations to our study. The small sample size and single-center nature prevent generalization. Also, the veteran population cannot be extrapolated to other populations. For instance, the majority of the patients in this study were male.

Conclusions

We report that an AIP approach for patients with long-standing T1DM is well accepted and engages patients into monitoring their blood sugars and achieving better glycemic control. This was achieved with minimal hypoglycemia in a population where often hypoglycemia unawareness makes DM care a challenge. Future studies within the VHA are needed to fully assess the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of this technology in veterans.

Newly published data show alarmingly high rates and severity of early diabetes-specific complications in individuals who develop type 2 diabetes at a young age. This suggests intervention should be early and aggressive among these youngsters, said the researchers.

AzmanJaka/E+/Getty Images

The results for the 500 young adult participants in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth 2 (TODAY 2) study were published online July 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine by the TODAY study group.

At follow-up – after originally participating in the TODAY trial when they were young teenagers – they had a mean age of 26.4 years.

At this time, more than two thirds had hypertension and half had dyslipidemia.

Overall, 60% had at least one diabetic microvascular complication (retinal disease, neuropathy, or diabetic kidney disease), and more than a quarter had two or more such complications.

“These data illustrate the serious personal and public health consequences of youth-onset type 2 diabetes in the transition to adulthood,” the researchers noted.
 

Don’t tread lightly just because they are young

“The fact that these youth are accumulating complications at a rapid rate and are broadly affected early in adulthood certainly suggests that aggressive therapy is needed, both for glycemic control and treatment of risk factors like hypertension and dyslipidemia,” study coauthor Philip S. Zeitler, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“In the absence of studies specifically addressing this, we need to take a more aggressive approach than people might be inclined to, given that the age at diagnosis is young, around 14 years,” he added.

“Contrary to the inclination to be ‘gentle’ in treating them because they are kids, these data suggest that we can’t let these initial years go by without strong intervention, and we need to be prepared for polypharmacy.”

Unfortunately, as Dr. Zeitler and coauthors explained, youth-onset type 2 diabetes is characterized by a suboptimal response to currently approved diabetes medications.

New pediatric indications in the United States for drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, including the recent Food and Drug Administration approval of extended-release exenatide for children as young as 10 years of age, “helps, but only marginally,” said Dr. Zeitler, of the Clinical & Translational Research Center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“In some cases, it will help get them covered by carriers, which is always good. But this is still a very limited set of medications. It doesn’t include more recently approved more potent glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, like semaglutide, and doesn’t include the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Pediatricians are used to using medications off label and that is necessary here while we await further approvals,” he said.  

And he noted that most individuals with youth-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States are covered by public insurance or are uninsured, depending on which state they live in. While the two major Medicaid programs in Colorado allow full access to adult formularies, that’s not the case everywhere. Moreover, patients often face further access barriers in states without expanded Medicaid.
 

Follow-up shows all metrics worsening over time

In TODAY 2, patients participated in an observational follow-up in their usual care settings in 2011-2020. At the start, they were receiving metformin with or without insulin for diabetes, but whether this continued and whether they were treated for other risk factors was down to individual circumstances.

Participants’ median A1c increased over time, and the percentage with A1c < 6% (< 48 mmol/mol) declined from 75% at the time of TODAY entry to just 19% at the 15-year end of follow-up.

The proportion with an A1c ≤ 10% (≤ 86 mmol/mol) rose from 0% at baseline to 34% at 15 years.

At that time, nearly 50% were taking both metformin and insulin, while more than a quarter were taking no medications.

The prevalence of hypertension increased from 19.2% at baseline to 67.5% at 15 years, while dyslipidemia rose from 20.8% to 51.6%.

Kidney disease prevalence increased from 8.0% at baseline to 54.8% at 15 years. Nerve disease rose from 1.0% to 32.4%. Retinal disease jumped from 13.7% with milder nonproliferative retinopathy in 2010-2011 to 51.0% with any eye disease in 2017-2018, including 8.8% with moderate to severe retinal changes and 3.5% with macular edema.  

Overall, at the time of the last visit, 39.9% had no diabetes complications, 31.8% had one, 21.3% had two, and 7.1% had three complications.
 

Serious cardiovascular events in mid-20s

There were 17 adjudicated serious cardiovascular events, including four myocardial infarctions, six heart failure events, three diagnoses of coronary artery disease, and four strokes.

Six participants died, one each from myocardial infarction, kidney failure, and drug overdose, and three from sepsis.

Dr. Zeitler called the macrovascular events “shocking,” noting that although the numbers are small, for people in their mid-20s “they should be zero ... While we don’t yet know if the rates are the same or faster than in adults, even if they are the same, these kids are only in their late 20s, as opposed to adults experiencing these problems in their 50s, 60s, and 70s.  

“The fact that these complications are occurring when these individuals should be in the prime of their life for both family and work has huge implications,” he stressed.
 

Findings have multiple causes

The reasons for the findings are both biologic and socioeconomic, Dr. Zeitler said.

“We know already that many kids with type 2 have rapid [deterioration of] beta-cell [function], which is probably very biologic. It stands to reason that an individual who can get diabetes as an adolescent probably has more fragile beta cells in some way,” he noted.

“But we also know that many other things contribute: stress, social determinants, access to quality care and medications, access to healthy foods and physical activity, availability of family supervision given the realities of families’ economic status and jobs, etc.”

It’s also known that youth with type 2 diabetes have much more severe insulin resistance than that of adults with the condition, and that “once the kids left ... the [TODAY] study, risk factor treatment in the community was less than ideal, and a lot of kids who met criteria for treatment of their blood pressure or lipids were not being treated. This is likely at least partly sociologic and partly the general pediatric hesitancy to use medications.”

He said the TODAY team will soon have some new data to show that “glycemia during the early years makes a difference, again supporting intensive intervention early on.”

The TODAY study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler had no further disclosures.

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

Newly published data show alarmingly high rates and severity of early diabetes-specific complications in individuals who develop type 2 diabetes at a young age. This suggests intervention should be early and aggressive among these youngsters, said the researchers.

AzmanJaka/E+/Getty Images

The results for the 500 young adult participants in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth 2 (TODAY 2) study were published online July 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine by the TODAY study group.

At follow-up – after originally participating in the TODAY trial when they were young teenagers – they had a mean age of 26.4 years.

At this time, more than two thirds had hypertension and half had dyslipidemia.

Overall, 60% had at least one diabetic microvascular complication (retinal disease, neuropathy, or diabetic kidney disease), and more than a quarter had two or more such complications.

“These data illustrate the serious personal and public health consequences of youth-onset type 2 diabetes in the transition to adulthood,” the researchers noted.
 

Don’t tread lightly just because they are young

“The fact that these youth are accumulating complications at a rapid rate and are broadly affected early in adulthood certainly suggests that aggressive therapy is needed, both for glycemic control and treatment of risk factors like hypertension and dyslipidemia,” study coauthor Philip S. Zeitler, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“In the absence of studies specifically addressing this, we need to take a more aggressive approach than people might be inclined to, given that the age at diagnosis is young, around 14 years,” he added.

“Contrary to the inclination to be ‘gentle’ in treating them because they are kids, these data suggest that we can’t let these initial years go by without strong intervention, and we need to be prepared for polypharmacy.”

Unfortunately, as Dr. Zeitler and coauthors explained, youth-onset type 2 diabetes is characterized by a suboptimal response to currently approved diabetes medications.

New pediatric indications in the United States for drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, including the recent Food and Drug Administration approval of extended-release exenatide for children as young as 10 years of age, “helps, but only marginally,” said Dr. Zeitler, of the Clinical & Translational Research Center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“In some cases, it will help get them covered by carriers, which is always good. But this is still a very limited set of medications. It doesn’t include more recently approved more potent glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, like semaglutide, and doesn’t include the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Pediatricians are used to using medications off label and that is necessary here while we await further approvals,” he said.  

And he noted that most individuals with youth-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States are covered by public insurance or are uninsured, depending on which state they live in. While the two major Medicaid programs in Colorado allow full access to adult formularies, that’s not the case everywhere. Moreover, patients often face further access barriers in states without expanded Medicaid.
 

Follow-up shows all metrics worsening over time

In TODAY 2, patients participated in an observational follow-up in their usual care settings in 2011-2020. At the start, they were receiving metformin with or without insulin for diabetes, but whether this continued and whether they were treated for other risk factors was down to individual circumstances.

Participants’ median A1c increased over time, and the percentage with A1c < 6% (< 48 mmol/mol) declined from 75% at the time of TODAY entry to just 19% at the 15-year end of follow-up.

The proportion with an A1c ≤ 10% (≤ 86 mmol/mol) rose from 0% at baseline to 34% at 15 years.

At that time, nearly 50% were taking both metformin and insulin, while more than a quarter were taking no medications.

The prevalence of hypertension increased from 19.2% at baseline to 67.5% at 15 years, while dyslipidemia rose from 20.8% to 51.6%.

Kidney disease prevalence increased from 8.0% at baseline to 54.8% at 15 years. Nerve disease rose from 1.0% to 32.4%. Retinal disease jumped from 13.7% with milder nonproliferative retinopathy in 2010-2011 to 51.0% with any eye disease in 2017-2018, including 8.8% with moderate to severe retinal changes and 3.5% with macular edema.  

Overall, at the time of the last visit, 39.9% had no diabetes complications, 31.8% had one, 21.3% had two, and 7.1% had three complications.
 

Serious cardiovascular events in mid-20s

There were 17 adjudicated serious cardiovascular events, including four myocardial infarctions, six heart failure events, three diagnoses of coronary artery disease, and four strokes.

Six participants died, one each from myocardial infarction, kidney failure, and drug overdose, and three from sepsis.

Dr. Zeitler called the macrovascular events “shocking,” noting that although the numbers are small, for people in their mid-20s “they should be zero ... While we don’t yet know if the rates are the same or faster than in adults, even if they are the same, these kids are only in their late 20s, as opposed to adults experiencing these problems in their 50s, 60s, and 70s.  

“The fact that these complications are occurring when these individuals should be in the prime of their life for both family and work has huge implications,” he stressed.
 

Findings have multiple causes

The reasons for the findings are both biologic and socioeconomic, Dr. Zeitler said.

“We know already that many kids with type 2 have rapid [deterioration of] beta-cell [function], which is probably very biologic. It stands to reason that an individual who can get diabetes as an adolescent probably has more fragile beta cells in some way,” he noted.

“But we also know that many other things contribute: stress, social determinants, access to quality care and medications, access to healthy foods and physical activity, availability of family supervision given the realities of families’ economic status and jobs, etc.”

It’s also known that youth with type 2 diabetes have much more severe insulin resistance than that of adults with the condition, and that “once the kids left ... the [TODAY] study, risk factor treatment in the community was less than ideal, and a lot of kids who met criteria for treatment of their blood pressure or lipids were not being treated. This is likely at least partly sociologic and partly the general pediatric hesitancy to use medications.”

He said the TODAY team will soon have some new data to show that “glycemia during the early years makes a difference, again supporting intensive intervention early on.”

The TODAY study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler had no further disclosures.

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

Newly published data show alarmingly high rates and severity of early diabetes-specific complications in individuals who develop type 2 diabetes at a young age. This suggests intervention should be early and aggressive among these youngsters, said the researchers.

AzmanJaka/E+/Getty Images

The results for the 500 young adult participants in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth 2 (TODAY 2) study were published online July 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine by the TODAY study group.

At follow-up – after originally participating in the TODAY trial when they were young teenagers – they had a mean age of 26.4 years.

At this time, more than two thirds had hypertension and half had dyslipidemia.

Overall, 60% had at least one diabetic microvascular complication (retinal disease, neuropathy, or diabetic kidney disease), and more than a quarter had two or more such complications.

“These data illustrate the serious personal and public health consequences of youth-onset type 2 diabetes in the transition to adulthood,” the researchers noted.
 

Don’t tread lightly just because they are young

“The fact that these youth are accumulating complications at a rapid rate and are broadly affected early in adulthood certainly suggests that aggressive therapy is needed, both for glycemic control and treatment of risk factors like hypertension and dyslipidemia,” study coauthor Philip S. Zeitler, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“In the absence of studies specifically addressing this, we need to take a more aggressive approach than people might be inclined to, given that the age at diagnosis is young, around 14 years,” he added.

“Contrary to the inclination to be ‘gentle’ in treating them because they are kids, these data suggest that we can’t let these initial years go by without strong intervention, and we need to be prepared for polypharmacy.”

Unfortunately, as Dr. Zeitler and coauthors explained, youth-onset type 2 diabetes is characterized by a suboptimal response to currently approved diabetes medications.

New pediatric indications in the United States for drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, including the recent Food and Drug Administration approval of extended-release exenatide for children as young as 10 years of age, “helps, but only marginally,” said Dr. Zeitler, of the Clinical & Translational Research Center, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

“In some cases, it will help get them covered by carriers, which is always good. But this is still a very limited set of medications. It doesn’t include more recently approved more potent glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, like semaglutide, and doesn’t include the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Pediatricians are used to using medications off label and that is necessary here while we await further approvals,” he said.  

And he noted that most individuals with youth-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States are covered by public insurance or are uninsured, depending on which state they live in. While the two major Medicaid programs in Colorado allow full access to adult formularies, that’s not the case everywhere. Moreover, patients often face further access barriers in states without expanded Medicaid.
 

Follow-up shows all metrics worsening over time

In TODAY 2, patients participated in an observational follow-up in their usual care settings in 2011-2020. At the start, they were receiving metformin with or without insulin for diabetes, but whether this continued and whether they were treated for other risk factors was down to individual circumstances.

Participants’ median A1c increased over time, and the percentage with A1c < 6% (< 48 mmol/mol) declined from 75% at the time of TODAY entry to just 19% at the 15-year end of follow-up.

The proportion with an A1c ≤ 10% (≤ 86 mmol/mol) rose from 0% at baseline to 34% at 15 years.

At that time, nearly 50% were taking both metformin and insulin, while more than a quarter were taking no medications.

The prevalence of hypertension increased from 19.2% at baseline to 67.5% at 15 years, while dyslipidemia rose from 20.8% to 51.6%.

Kidney disease prevalence increased from 8.0% at baseline to 54.8% at 15 years. Nerve disease rose from 1.0% to 32.4%. Retinal disease jumped from 13.7% with milder nonproliferative retinopathy in 2010-2011 to 51.0% with any eye disease in 2017-2018, including 8.8% with moderate to severe retinal changes and 3.5% with macular edema.  

Overall, at the time of the last visit, 39.9% had no diabetes complications, 31.8% had one, 21.3% had two, and 7.1% had three complications.
 

Serious cardiovascular events in mid-20s

There were 17 adjudicated serious cardiovascular events, including four myocardial infarctions, six heart failure events, three diagnoses of coronary artery disease, and four strokes.

Six participants died, one each from myocardial infarction, kidney failure, and drug overdose, and three from sepsis.

Dr. Zeitler called the macrovascular events “shocking,” noting that although the numbers are small, for people in their mid-20s “they should be zero ... While we don’t yet know if the rates are the same or faster than in adults, even if they are the same, these kids are only in their late 20s, as opposed to adults experiencing these problems in their 50s, 60s, and 70s.  

“The fact that these complications are occurring when these individuals should be in the prime of their life for both family and work has huge implications,” he stressed.
 

Findings have multiple causes

The reasons for the findings are both biologic and socioeconomic, Dr. Zeitler said.

“We know already that many kids with type 2 have rapid [deterioration of] beta-cell [function], which is probably very biologic. It stands to reason that an individual who can get diabetes as an adolescent probably has more fragile beta cells in some way,” he noted.

“But we also know that many other things contribute: stress, social determinants, access to quality care and medications, access to healthy foods and physical activity, availability of family supervision given the realities of families’ economic status and jobs, etc.”

It’s also known that youth with type 2 diabetes have much more severe insulin resistance than that of adults with the condition, and that “once the kids left ... the [TODAY] study, risk factor treatment in the community was less than ideal, and a lot of kids who met criteria for treatment of their blood pressure or lipids were not being treated. This is likely at least partly sociologic and partly the general pediatric hesitancy to use medications.”

He said the TODAY team will soon have some new data to show that “glycemia during the early years makes a difference, again supporting intensive intervention early on.”

The TODAY study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler had no further disclosures.

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

Today there are so many evidence-based drug therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) that physicians treating HF patients almost don’t know what to do them.

It’s an exciting new age that way, but to many vexingly unclear how best to merge the shiny new options with mainstay regimens based on time-honored renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and beta-blockers.

To impart some clarity, the authors of a new HF guideline document recently took center stage at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) annual meeting to preview their updated recommendations, with novel twists based on recent major trials, for the new age of HF pharmacotherapeutics.

The guideline committee considered the evidence base that existed “up until the end of March of this year,” Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, said during the presentation. The document “is now finalized, it’s with the publishers, and it will be presented in full with simultaneous publication at the ESC meeting” that starts August 27.

It describes a game plan, already followed by some clinicians in practice without official guidance, for initiating drugs from each of four classes in virtually all patients with HFrEF.
 

New indicated drugs, new perspective for HFrEF

Three of the drug categories are old acquaintances. Among them are the RAS inhibitors, which include angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The latter drugs are gaining new respect after having been underplayed in HF prescribing despite longstanding evidence of efficacy.

Completing the quartet of first-line HFrEF drug classes is a recent arrival to the HF arena, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“We now have new data and a simplified treatment algorithm for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on the early administration of the four major classes of drugs,” said Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy), previewing the medical-therapy portions of the new guideline at the ESC-HFA sessions, which launched virtually and live in Florence, Italy, on July 29.

The new game plan offers a simple answer to a once-common but complex question: How and in what order are the different drug classes initiated in patients with HFrEF? In the new document, the stated goal is to get them all on board expeditiously and safely, by any means possible.

The guideline writers did not specify a sequence, preferring to leave that decision to physicians, said Dr. Metra, who stated only two guiding principles. The first is to consider the patient’s unique circumstances. The order in which the drugs are introduced might vary, depending on, for example, whether the patient has low or high blood pressure or renal dysfunction.

Second, “it is very important that we try to give all four classes of drugs to the patient in the shortest time possible, because this saves lives,” he said.

That there is no recommendation on sequencing the drugs has led some to the wrong interpretation that all should be started at once, observed coauthor Javed Butler, MD, MPH, University of Mississippi, Jackson, as a panelist during the presentation. Far from it, he said. “The doctor with the patient in front of you can make the best decision. The idea here is to get all the therapies on as soon as possible, as safely as possible.”

“The order in which they are introduced is not really important,” agreed Vijay Chopra, MD, Max Super Specialty Hospital Saket, New Delhi, another coauthor on the panel. “The important thing is that at least some dose of all the four drugs needs to be introduced in the first 4-6 weeks, and then up-titrated.”

Other medical therapy can be more tailored, Dr. Metra noted, such as loop diuretics for patients with congestion, iron for those with iron deficiency, and other drugs depending on whether there is, for example, atrial fibrillation or coronary disease.
 

Adoption of emerging definitions

The document adopts the emerging characterization of HFrEF by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) up to 40%.

And it will leverage an expanding evidence base for medication in a segment of patients once said to have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who had therefore lacked specific, guideline-directed medical therapies. Now, patients with an LVEF of 41%-49% will be said to have HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), a tweak to the recently introduced HF with “mid-range” LVEF that is designed to assert its nature as something to treat. The new document’s HFmrEF recommendations come with various class and level-of-evidence ratings.

That leaves HFpEF to be characterized by an LVEF of 50% in combination with structural or functional abnormalities associated with LV diastolic dysfunction or raised LV filling pressures, including raised natriuretic peptide levels.

The definitions are consistent with those proposed internationally by the ESC-HFA, the Heart Failure Society of America, and other groups in a statement published in March.
 

Expanded HFrEF med landscape

Since the 2016 ESC guideline on HF therapy, Dr. McDonagh said, “there’s been no substantial change in the evidence for many of the classical drugs that we use in heart failure. However, we had a lot of new and exciting evidence to consider,” especially in support of the SGLT2 inhibitors as one of the core medications in HFrEF.

The new data came from two controlled trials in particular. In DAPA-HF, patients with HFrEF who were initially without diabetes and who went on dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) showed a 27% drop in cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening-HF events over a median of 18 months.

“That was followed up with very concordant results with empagliflozin [Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly] in HFrEF in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial,” Dr. McDonagh said. In that trial, comparable patients who took empagliflozin showed a 25% drop in a primary endpoint similar to that in DAPA-HF over the median 16-month follow-up.

Other HFrEF recommendations are for selected patients. They include ivabradine, already in the guidelines, for patients in sinus rhythm with an elevated resting heart rate who can’t take beta-blockers for whatever reason. But, Dr. McDonagh noted, “we had some new classes of drugs to consider as well.”

In particular, the oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo) emerged about a year ago from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization. In the trial with more than 5,000 patients, treatment with vericiguat atop standard drug and device therapy was followed by a significant 10% drop in risk for CV death or HF hospitalization.

Available now or likely to be available in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other countries, vericiguat is recommended in the new guideline for VICTORIA-like patients who don’t adequately respond to other indicated medications.
 

Little for HFpEF as newly defined

“Almost nothing is new” in the guidelines for HFpEF, Dr. Metra said. The document recommends screening for and treatment of any underlying disorder and comorbidities, plus diuretics for any congestion. “That’s what we have to date.”

But that evidence base might soon change. The new HFpEF recommendations could possibly be up-staged at the ESC sessions by the August 27 scheduled presentation of EMPEROR-Preserved, a randomized test of empagliflozin in HFpEF and – it could be said – HFmrEF. The trial entered patients with chronic HF and an LVEF greater than 40%.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim offered the world a peek at the results, which suggest the SGLT2 inhibitor had a positive impact on the primary endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization. They announced the cursory top-line outcomes in early July as part of its regulatory obligations, noting that the trial had “met” its primary endpoint.

But many unknowns remain, including the degree of benefit and whether it varied among subgroups, and especially whether outcomes were different for HFmrEF than for HFpEF.
 

Upgrades for familiar agents

Still, HFmrEF gets noteworthy attention in the document. “For the first time, we have recommendations for these patients,” Dr. Metra said. “We already knew that diuretics are indicated for the treatment of congestion. But now, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, as well as sacubitril/valsartan, may be considered to improve outcomes in these patients.” Their upgrades in the new guidelines were based on review of trials in the CHARM program and of TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF, among others, he said.

The new document also includes “treatment algorithms based on phenotypes”; that is, comorbidities and less common HF precipitants. For example, “assessment of iron status is now mandated in all patients with heart failure,” Dr. Metra said.

AFFIRM-HF is the key trial in this arena, with its more than 1,100 iron-deficient patients with LVEF less than 50% who had been recently hospitalized for HF. A year of treatment with ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject/Injectafer, Vifor) led to a 26% drop in risk for HF hospitalization, but without affecting mortality.

For those who are iron deficient, Dr. Metra said, “ferric carboxymaltose intravenously should be considered not only in patients with low ejection fraction and outpatients, but also in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure.”

The SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended in HFrEF patients with type 2 diabetes. And treatment with tafamidis (Vyndaqel, Pfizer) in patients with genetic or wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis gets a class I recommendation based on survival gains seen in the ATTR-ACT trial.

Also recommended is a full CV assessment for patients with cancer who are on cardiotoxic agents or otherwise might be at risk for chemotherapy cardiotoxicity. “Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors should be considered in those who develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction after anticancer therapy,” Dr. Metra said.

The ongoing pandemic made its mark on the document’s genesis, as it has with most everything else. “For better or worse, we were a ‘COVID guideline,’ ” Dr. McDonagh said. The writing committee consisted of “a large task force of 31 individuals, including two patients,” and there were “only two face-to-face meetings prior to the first wave of COVID hitting Europe.”

The committee voted on each of the recommendations, “and we had to have agreement of more than 75% of the task force to assign a class of recommendation or level of evidence,” she said. “I think we did the best we could in the circumstances. We had the benefit of many discussions over Zoom, and I think at the end of the day we have achieved a consensus.”

With such a large body of participants and the 75% threshold for agreement, “you end up with perhaps a conservative guideline. But that’s not a bad thing for clinical practice, for guidelines to be conservative,” Dr. McDonagh said. “They’re mainly concerned with looking at evidence and safety.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable insulin, Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), which can be substituted for glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription.

The approval will allow Semglee to function like a generic drug in the market and may reduce insulin costs.

It is indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Originally approved in June 2020 as a biosimilar to glargine, Semglee is now an “interchangeable biosimilar,” meaning that it has no clinically meaningful difference from the reference product and also may be substituted for that product – in this case, glargine (Lantus) – without prescriber intervention, just as generic drugs typically are, subject to state pharmacy laws.

For approval as an interchangeable biosimilar, manufacturers are required to provide additional data reflecting how the interchangeable biosimilar may be used in the marketplace with patients.

“Biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products have the potential to reduce health care costs, similar to how generic drugs have reduced costs. Biosimilars marketed in the U.S. typically have launched with initial list prices 15% to 35% lower than comparative list prices of the reference products,” the FDA said in a statement.

Semglee comes in 10-mL and 3-mL prefilled pens, and is administered subcutaneously once daily, with individualized doses. The most common side effects are hypoglycemia, edema, lipodystrophy, weight gain, and allergic reactions.

The FDA released new materials for health care providers regarding biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products, including a fact sheet about interchangeable biosimilar products.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable insulin, Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), which can be substituted for glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription.

The approval will allow Semglee to function like a generic drug in the market and may reduce insulin costs.

It is indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Originally approved in June 2020 as a biosimilar to glargine, Semglee is now an “interchangeable biosimilar,” meaning that it has no clinically meaningful difference from the reference product and also may be substituted for that product – in this case, glargine (Lantus) – without prescriber intervention, just as generic drugs typically are, subject to state pharmacy laws.

For approval as an interchangeable biosimilar, manufacturers are required to provide additional data reflecting how the interchangeable biosimilar may be used in the marketplace with patients.

“Biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products have the potential to reduce health care costs, similar to how generic drugs have reduced costs. Biosimilars marketed in the U.S. typically have launched with initial list prices 15% to 35% lower than comparative list prices of the reference products,” the FDA said in a statement.

Semglee comes in 10-mL and 3-mL prefilled pens, and is administered subcutaneously once daily, with individualized doses. The most common side effects are hypoglycemia, edema, lipodystrophy, weight gain, and allergic reactions.

The FDA released new materials for health care providers regarding biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products, including a fact sheet about interchangeable biosimilar products.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first interchangeable insulin, Semglee (Mylan Pharmaceuticals), which can be substituted for glargine (Lantus, Sanofi) at the pharmacy without the need for a separate prescription.

The approval will allow Semglee to function like a generic drug in the market and may reduce insulin costs.

It is indicated to improve glycemic control in adults and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Originally approved in June 2020 as a biosimilar to glargine, Semglee is now an “interchangeable biosimilar,” meaning that it has no clinically meaningful difference from the reference product and also may be substituted for that product – in this case, glargine (Lantus) – without prescriber intervention, just as generic drugs typically are, subject to state pharmacy laws.

For approval as an interchangeable biosimilar, manufacturers are required to provide additional data reflecting how the interchangeable biosimilar may be used in the marketplace with patients.

“Biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products have the potential to reduce health care costs, similar to how generic drugs have reduced costs. Biosimilars marketed in the U.S. typically have launched with initial list prices 15% to 35% lower than comparative list prices of the reference products,” the FDA said in a statement.

Semglee comes in 10-mL and 3-mL prefilled pens, and is administered subcutaneously once daily, with individualized doses. The most common side effects are hypoglycemia, edema, lipodystrophy, weight gain, and allergic reactions.

The FDA released new materials for health care providers regarding biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar products, including a fact sheet about interchangeable biosimilar products.

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