Diabetes

Two lots of metformin HCl extended-release tablets have been recalled by Viona Pharmaceuticals because unacceptable levels of nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen, were found in the 750-mg tablets.

According to a June 11 alert from the Food and Drug Administration, the affected lot numbers are M915601 and M915602.

This generic product was made by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, in November 2019 with an expiration date of October 2021, and distributed throughout the United States. The pill is white to off-white, capsule-shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z”, “C” on one side and “20” on the other side.

No adverse events related to the lots involved in the recall have been reported, the FDA said. It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the U.S. supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 3 years.

In February 2020, the FDA reported that they hadn’t found NDMA levels that exceeded the acceptable daily intake. But starting in May 2020, voluntary recalls by, numerous manufacturers have been announced as levels of the compound exceeded that cutoff.

[email protected]

Two lots of metformin HCl extended-release tablets have been recalled by Viona Pharmaceuticals because unacceptable levels of nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen, were found in the 750-mg tablets.

According to a June 11 alert from the Food and Drug Administration, the affected lot numbers are M915601 and M915602.

This generic product was made by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, in November 2019 with an expiration date of October 2021, and distributed throughout the United States. The pill is white to off-white, capsule-shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z”, “C” on one side and “20” on the other side.

No adverse events related to the lots involved in the recall have been reported, the FDA said. It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the U.S. supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 3 years.

In February 2020, the FDA reported that they hadn’t found NDMA levels that exceeded the acceptable daily intake. But starting in May 2020, voluntary recalls by, numerous manufacturers have been announced as levels of the compound exceeded that cutoff.

[email protected]

Two lots of metformin HCl extended-release tablets have been recalled by Viona Pharmaceuticals because unacceptable levels of nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen, were found in the 750-mg tablets.

According to a June 11 alert from the Food and Drug Administration, the affected lot numbers are M915601 and M915602.

This generic product was made by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, in November 2019 with an expiration date of October 2021, and distributed throughout the United States. The pill is white to off-white, capsule-shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z”, “C” on one side and “20” on the other side.

No adverse events related to the lots involved in the recall have been reported, the FDA said. It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the U.S. supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 3 years.

In February 2020, the FDA reported that they hadn’t found NDMA levels that exceeded the acceptable daily intake. But starting in May 2020, voluntary recalls by, numerous manufacturers have been announced as levels of the compound exceeded that cutoff.

[email protected]

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

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

The investigational, novel, injected once-weekly “twincretin” tirzepatide met its primary efficacy endpoint of significantly cutting hemoglobin A1c as well as its secondary weight-loss endpoint in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with control patients in top-line results from each of five discrete pivotal trials.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

The company developing tirzepatide, Lilly, announced these results in a series of four press releases issued during December 2020–May 2021. Scientific reports on the outcomes from four of these trials are scheduled during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions being held virtually in late June 2021, with results from the fifth on track for a report during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

Tirzepatide is a “twincretin” because it combines in a single molecule two different gut-hormone activities. It works as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

While diabetologists qualified their comments on these results because of the limited scope and format of the five reports to date, they also expressed enthusiasm over what the press releases said.
 

Results give hope

“It’s quite exciting, but of course we would like to go by the data that’s presented” at upcoming meetings, commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association in Arlington, Va. “The idea of GLP-1 and GIP activities working together has been out there for a while, but without any therapeutic options that leverage this,” he said in an interview.

“The preliminary results give us hope that tirzepatide will be a very effective glucose-lowering agent, perhaps the most effective among all options currently available, including insulin,” commented Ildiko Lingvay, MD, a diabetologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Tirzepatide might have the added benefit of clinically meaningful weight loss,” and “the adverse event profile seems to be in line with what we are accustomed to with the GLP-1 RA class. I look forward to seeing the full results. Tirzepatide promises to be a great addition for type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
 

A rare head-to-head against semaglutide

The five phase 3, randomized controlled trials described by Lilly in its four press releases all belong to the SURPASS series of studies for this agent. Perhaps the most intriguing of the five were results from SURPASS-2, announced in a release on March 4. This trial randomized 1,879 patients from the United States or any of seven other countries to 40 weeks of open-label treatment with one of three different dosages of tirzepatide administered by injection once weekly, or to the control group that received a weekly 1-mg injection of semaglutide (Ozempic), the highest dosage approved for controlling glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes at the time the study launched.

In SURPASS-2 all three tested dosages of tirzepatide led to a significantly larger reduction, from baseline in A1c, compared with semaglutide, after 40 weeks, according to the Lilly release. Each of the three tirzepatide dosages also led to significantly greater weight loss from baseline, compared with semaglutide, and significantly greater percentages of patients who achieved an A1c of less than 7%, compared with semaglutide.

As an example, the highest tested tirzepatide dosage of 15 mg weekly led to an average A1c reduction from baseline of 2.46% and an average weight loss from baseline of 12.4 kg; 92% of patients achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 51% had their A1c fall below 5.7% which indicates completely normalization of glycemic control. By comparison, the patients randomized to treatment with semaglutide had an average 1.86% reduction in their A1c level from baseline and a 6.2-kg average cut in body weight from baseline; 81% achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 20% reached an A1c of less than 5.7%.
 

There are caveats

While these findings are notable as a rare example of an industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison of two new agents, the study comes with a few important asterisks.

First, it was open label, a curious limitation given that both agents are delivered by the same delivery method and schedule. “I cannot conclude based on this study that tirzepatide is superior because it was open label,” commented Anastassia Amaro, MD, medical director of Penn Metabolic Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“The gold standard is the double-blind study. An open-label design is a limitation,” agreed Dr. Gabbay.

A second caveat is that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a higher dosage of semaglutide (2.4 g once/week) for treating overweight or obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those without diabetes but a different weight-related condition such as hypertension of hypercholesterolemia. This means that the tested comparator dosage of 1 mg/week is no longer the maximum that most patients treated with semaglutide for glycemic control can receive.

“The inevitable question” about this comparison study is “what about a higher semaglutide dose,” and how might tirzepatide perform relative to that, said Dr. Gabbay. The recently approved higher dosage of semaglutide “adds an interesting wrinkle.”

Lilly has launched a series of studies testing tirzepatide as a treatment for overweight or obesity in people without diabetes, but the results are not expected until sometime in 2022 or 2023.

And there’s a third caveat: Semaglutide has already shown its value for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial with nearly 3,300 randomized patients followed for 2 years and reported in 2016. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT with more than 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, is underway but its results are not expected until 2024.

Despite these important limitations, a blinded comparison of tirzepatide and higher-dose semaglutide is unlikely, Dr. Amaro predicted. “It’s not worth the expense,” she said in an interview. A more likely scenario will be that, if tirzepatide enters the U.S. market, decisions on whether to treat patients with it or semaglutide will pivot on factors like the cost for treatment to individual patients based on their insurance coverage and tolerability, suggested both Dr. Amaro and Dr. Gabbay. “Physicians will need to develop a sense for tirzepatide: Do patients tolerate it and are they happy using it?” Dr. Amaro said.
 

Tirzepatide versus insulin, or on top of insulin

The other four trials in patients with type 2 diabetes reported by Lilly in releases included SURPASS-1, which randomized 478 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo as monotherapy; SURPASS-3, which randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or insulin degludec (Tresiba) on top of background treatment with metformin; SURPASS-4, which randomized 2,002 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk to treatment with tirzepatide or insulin glargine (Lantus) on top of background treatment with one to three different oral drugs; and SURPASS-5, which randomized 475 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo on top of background treatment with insulin glargine and optional addition of metformin. Altogether, the five trials randomized nearly 6,300 patients.

The studies that compared tirzepatide against two different types of insulin, and the third that tested tirzepatide on top of insulin glargine, are especially notable. “It’s good to see that the combination [of tirzepatide and insulin glargine] works without causing major adverse events,” said Dr. Amaro.

“These are fair and helpful comparisons. I applaud Lilly for doing the right kind of comparisons,” said Dr. Gabbay.

In total, the five studies “provide evidence that tirzepatide will be effective at all stages of type 2 diabetes and can safely be used in combination with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin,” said Dr. Lingvay. The studies with active comparator agents “allow us to compare tirzepatide’s efficacy against established therapies.”

The SURPASS trials were sponsored by Lilly, which is developing tirzepatide. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lingvay has received research funds, consulting and advisory fees, or other support from Lilly as well as from several other companies including Novo Nordisk, which markets semaglutide (Ozempic) and insulin degludec (Tresiba), and Sanofi, which markets insulin glargine (Lantus). Dr. Amaro has received research funding from Lilly and from Fractyl, and has been a consultant to and received research funding from Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

The investigational, novel, injected once-weekly “twincretin” tirzepatide met its primary efficacy endpoint of significantly cutting hemoglobin A1c as well as its secondary weight-loss endpoint in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with control patients in top-line results from each of five discrete pivotal trials.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

The company developing tirzepatide, Lilly, announced these results in a series of four press releases issued during December 2020–May 2021. Scientific reports on the outcomes from four of these trials are scheduled during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions being held virtually in late June 2021, with results from the fifth on track for a report during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

Tirzepatide is a “twincretin” because it combines in a single molecule two different gut-hormone activities. It works as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

While diabetologists qualified their comments on these results because of the limited scope and format of the five reports to date, they also expressed enthusiasm over what the press releases said.
 

Results give hope

“It’s quite exciting, but of course we would like to go by the data that’s presented” at upcoming meetings, commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association in Arlington, Va. “The idea of GLP-1 and GIP activities working together has been out there for a while, but without any therapeutic options that leverage this,” he said in an interview.

“The preliminary results give us hope that tirzepatide will be a very effective glucose-lowering agent, perhaps the most effective among all options currently available, including insulin,” commented Ildiko Lingvay, MD, a diabetologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Tirzepatide might have the added benefit of clinically meaningful weight loss,” and “the adverse event profile seems to be in line with what we are accustomed to with the GLP-1 RA class. I look forward to seeing the full results. Tirzepatide promises to be a great addition for type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
 

A rare head-to-head against semaglutide

The five phase 3, randomized controlled trials described by Lilly in its four press releases all belong to the SURPASS series of studies for this agent. Perhaps the most intriguing of the five were results from SURPASS-2, announced in a release on March 4. This trial randomized 1,879 patients from the United States or any of seven other countries to 40 weeks of open-label treatment with one of three different dosages of tirzepatide administered by injection once weekly, or to the control group that received a weekly 1-mg injection of semaglutide (Ozempic), the highest dosage approved for controlling glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes at the time the study launched.

In SURPASS-2 all three tested dosages of tirzepatide led to a significantly larger reduction, from baseline in A1c, compared with semaglutide, after 40 weeks, according to the Lilly release. Each of the three tirzepatide dosages also led to significantly greater weight loss from baseline, compared with semaglutide, and significantly greater percentages of patients who achieved an A1c of less than 7%, compared with semaglutide.

As an example, the highest tested tirzepatide dosage of 15 mg weekly led to an average A1c reduction from baseline of 2.46% and an average weight loss from baseline of 12.4 kg; 92% of patients achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 51% had their A1c fall below 5.7% which indicates completely normalization of glycemic control. By comparison, the patients randomized to treatment with semaglutide had an average 1.86% reduction in their A1c level from baseline and a 6.2-kg average cut in body weight from baseline; 81% achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 20% reached an A1c of less than 5.7%.
 

There are caveats

While these findings are notable as a rare example of an industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison of two new agents, the study comes with a few important asterisks.

First, it was open label, a curious limitation given that both agents are delivered by the same delivery method and schedule. “I cannot conclude based on this study that tirzepatide is superior because it was open label,” commented Anastassia Amaro, MD, medical director of Penn Metabolic Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“The gold standard is the double-blind study. An open-label design is a limitation,” agreed Dr. Gabbay.

A second caveat is that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a higher dosage of semaglutide (2.4 g once/week) for treating overweight or obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those without diabetes but a different weight-related condition such as hypertension of hypercholesterolemia. This means that the tested comparator dosage of 1 mg/week is no longer the maximum that most patients treated with semaglutide for glycemic control can receive.

“The inevitable question” about this comparison study is “what about a higher semaglutide dose,” and how might tirzepatide perform relative to that, said Dr. Gabbay. The recently approved higher dosage of semaglutide “adds an interesting wrinkle.”

Lilly has launched a series of studies testing tirzepatide as a treatment for overweight or obesity in people without diabetes, but the results are not expected until sometime in 2022 or 2023.

And there’s a third caveat: Semaglutide has already shown its value for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial with nearly 3,300 randomized patients followed for 2 years and reported in 2016. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT with more than 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, is underway but its results are not expected until 2024.

Despite these important limitations, a blinded comparison of tirzepatide and higher-dose semaglutide is unlikely, Dr. Amaro predicted. “It’s not worth the expense,” she said in an interview. A more likely scenario will be that, if tirzepatide enters the U.S. market, decisions on whether to treat patients with it or semaglutide will pivot on factors like the cost for treatment to individual patients based on their insurance coverage and tolerability, suggested both Dr. Amaro and Dr. Gabbay. “Physicians will need to develop a sense for tirzepatide: Do patients tolerate it and are they happy using it?” Dr. Amaro said.
 

Tirzepatide versus insulin, or on top of insulin

The other four trials in patients with type 2 diabetes reported by Lilly in releases included SURPASS-1, which randomized 478 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo as monotherapy; SURPASS-3, which randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or insulin degludec (Tresiba) on top of background treatment with metformin; SURPASS-4, which randomized 2,002 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk to treatment with tirzepatide or insulin glargine (Lantus) on top of background treatment with one to three different oral drugs; and SURPASS-5, which randomized 475 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo on top of background treatment with insulin glargine and optional addition of metformin. Altogether, the five trials randomized nearly 6,300 patients.

The studies that compared tirzepatide against two different types of insulin, and the third that tested tirzepatide on top of insulin glargine, are especially notable. “It’s good to see that the combination [of tirzepatide and insulin glargine] works without causing major adverse events,” said Dr. Amaro.

“These are fair and helpful comparisons. I applaud Lilly for doing the right kind of comparisons,” said Dr. Gabbay.

In total, the five studies “provide evidence that tirzepatide will be effective at all stages of type 2 diabetes and can safely be used in combination with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin,” said Dr. Lingvay. The studies with active comparator agents “allow us to compare tirzepatide’s efficacy against established therapies.”

The SURPASS trials were sponsored by Lilly, which is developing tirzepatide. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lingvay has received research funds, consulting and advisory fees, or other support from Lilly as well as from several other companies including Novo Nordisk, which markets semaglutide (Ozempic) and insulin degludec (Tresiba), and Sanofi, which markets insulin glargine (Lantus). Dr. Amaro has received research funding from Lilly and from Fractyl, and has been a consultant to and received research funding from Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

The investigational, novel, injected once-weekly “twincretin” tirzepatide met its primary efficacy endpoint of significantly cutting hemoglobin A1c as well as its secondary weight-loss endpoint in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with control patients in top-line results from each of five discrete pivotal trials.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

The company developing tirzepatide, Lilly, announced these results in a series of four press releases issued during December 2020–May 2021. Scientific reports on the outcomes from four of these trials are scheduled during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions being held virtually in late June 2021, with results from the fifth on track for a report during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

Tirzepatide is a “twincretin” because it combines in a single molecule two different gut-hormone activities. It works as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).

While diabetologists qualified their comments on these results because of the limited scope and format of the five reports to date, they also expressed enthusiasm over what the press releases said.
 

Results give hope

“It’s quite exciting, but of course we would like to go by the data that’s presented” at upcoming meetings, commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association in Arlington, Va. “The idea of GLP-1 and GIP activities working together has been out there for a while, but without any therapeutic options that leverage this,” he said in an interview.

“The preliminary results give us hope that tirzepatide will be a very effective glucose-lowering agent, perhaps the most effective among all options currently available, including insulin,” commented Ildiko Lingvay, MD, a diabetologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Tirzepatide might have the added benefit of clinically meaningful weight loss,” and “the adverse event profile seems to be in line with what we are accustomed to with the GLP-1 RA class. I look forward to seeing the full results. Tirzepatide promises to be a great addition for type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
 

A rare head-to-head against semaglutide

The five phase 3, randomized controlled trials described by Lilly in its four press releases all belong to the SURPASS series of studies for this agent. Perhaps the most intriguing of the five were results from SURPASS-2, announced in a release on March 4. This trial randomized 1,879 patients from the United States or any of seven other countries to 40 weeks of open-label treatment with one of three different dosages of tirzepatide administered by injection once weekly, or to the control group that received a weekly 1-mg injection of semaglutide (Ozempic), the highest dosage approved for controlling glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes at the time the study launched.

In SURPASS-2 all three tested dosages of tirzepatide led to a significantly larger reduction, from baseline in A1c, compared with semaglutide, after 40 weeks, according to the Lilly release. Each of the three tirzepatide dosages also led to significantly greater weight loss from baseline, compared with semaglutide, and significantly greater percentages of patients who achieved an A1c of less than 7%, compared with semaglutide.

As an example, the highest tested tirzepatide dosage of 15 mg weekly led to an average A1c reduction from baseline of 2.46% and an average weight loss from baseline of 12.4 kg; 92% of patients achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 51% had their A1c fall below 5.7% which indicates completely normalization of glycemic control. By comparison, the patients randomized to treatment with semaglutide had an average 1.86% reduction in their A1c level from baseline and a 6.2-kg average cut in body weight from baseline; 81% achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 20% reached an A1c of less than 5.7%.
 

There are caveats

While these findings are notable as a rare example of an industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison of two new agents, the study comes with a few important asterisks.

First, it was open label, a curious limitation given that both agents are delivered by the same delivery method and schedule. “I cannot conclude based on this study that tirzepatide is superior because it was open label,” commented Anastassia Amaro, MD, medical director of Penn Metabolic Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“The gold standard is the double-blind study. An open-label design is a limitation,” agreed Dr. Gabbay.

A second caveat is that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a higher dosage of semaglutide (2.4 g once/week) for treating overweight or obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those without diabetes but a different weight-related condition such as hypertension of hypercholesterolemia. This means that the tested comparator dosage of 1 mg/week is no longer the maximum that most patients treated with semaglutide for glycemic control can receive.

“The inevitable question” about this comparison study is “what about a higher semaglutide dose,” and how might tirzepatide perform relative to that, said Dr. Gabbay. The recently approved higher dosage of semaglutide “adds an interesting wrinkle.”

Lilly has launched a series of studies testing tirzepatide as a treatment for overweight or obesity in people without diabetes, but the results are not expected until sometime in 2022 or 2023.

And there’s a third caveat: Semaglutide has already shown its value for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial with nearly 3,300 randomized patients followed for 2 years and reported in 2016. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT with more than 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, is underway but its results are not expected until 2024.

Despite these important limitations, a blinded comparison of tirzepatide and higher-dose semaglutide is unlikely, Dr. Amaro predicted. “It’s not worth the expense,” she said in an interview. A more likely scenario will be that, if tirzepatide enters the U.S. market, decisions on whether to treat patients with it or semaglutide will pivot on factors like the cost for treatment to individual patients based on their insurance coverage and tolerability, suggested both Dr. Amaro and Dr. Gabbay. “Physicians will need to develop a sense for tirzepatide: Do patients tolerate it and are they happy using it?” Dr. Amaro said.
 

Tirzepatide versus insulin, or on top of insulin

The other four trials in patients with type 2 diabetes reported by Lilly in releases included SURPASS-1, which randomized 478 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo as monotherapy; SURPASS-3, which randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or insulin degludec (Tresiba) on top of background treatment with metformin; SURPASS-4, which randomized 2,002 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk to treatment with tirzepatide or insulin glargine (Lantus) on top of background treatment with one to three different oral drugs; and SURPASS-5, which randomized 475 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo on top of background treatment with insulin glargine and optional addition of metformin. Altogether, the five trials randomized nearly 6,300 patients.

The studies that compared tirzepatide against two different types of insulin, and the third that tested tirzepatide on top of insulin glargine, are especially notable. “It’s good to see that the combination [of tirzepatide and insulin glargine] works without causing major adverse events,” said Dr. Amaro.

“These are fair and helpful comparisons. I applaud Lilly for doing the right kind of comparisons,” said Dr. Gabbay.

In total, the five studies “provide evidence that tirzepatide will be effective at all stages of type 2 diabetes and can safely be used in combination with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin,” said Dr. Lingvay. The studies with active comparator agents “allow us to compare tirzepatide’s efficacy against established therapies.”

The SURPASS trials were sponsored by Lilly, which is developing tirzepatide. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lingvay has received research funds, consulting and advisory fees, or other support from Lilly as well as from several other companies including Novo Nordisk, which markets semaglutide (Ozempic) and insulin degludec (Tresiba), and Sanofi, which markets insulin glargine (Lantus). Dr. Amaro has received research funding from Lilly and from Fractyl, and has been a consultant to and received research funding from Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

It follows that, as the prevalence of obesity among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) increases, so would the incidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), as it does in type 2 diabetes.

However, researchers in Finland report that the incidence of NAFL in T1DM is much lower, and that the use of the waist-to-height ratio to calculate midsection girth could be a low-cost alternative to MRI and computed tomography to more precisely diagnose NAFL in T1DM.

In a cross-sectional analysis of 121 adults with T1DM in the Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy study, known as FinnDiane, researchers from the University of Helsinki report in Diabetes Care that a waist-to-height ratio of 0.5 showed a relatively high rate of accuracy for identifying NAFL that was statistically significant (P = .04).

Lead author Erika B. Parente, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Folkhälsän Research Center in Helsinki, noted that the findings do not identify any causality between what the researchers called visceral adiposity and NAFL. “As long as they have accumulation of fat in the center of body and they can develop this low-grade inflammation that also goes to insulin-load sensitivity, people with T1DM can accumulate fat in the liver as do people with T2DM and the general population,” she said in an interview.

These findings build on her group’s previous work published in Scientific Reports showing a strong relationship between waist-to-height ratio and visceral fat percentage in adults with T1DM. The most recent FinnDiane analysis found no similar relationship between NAFL and fat tissue in the hips, arms and legs, and total adipose tissue.
 

Better than BMI as a measure

“We also found that waist-to-height ratio is better than body mass index to identify those individuals at higher risk of having NAFL,” Dr. Parente said. However, it’s not possible to predict which patients referred to imaging evaluation after being screened by waist-to-height ratio of 0.5 will surely have NAFL, she added.

That answer, she said, would require a longitudinal and cost-effectiveness study with larger population.

The waist-to-height ratio cutoff of 0.5 showed an 86% sensitivity and 55% specificity for NAFL, whereas BMI of 26.6 kg/m² showed an 79% sensitivity and 57% specificity.

“The most important message from our research is that health care professionals should be aware that individuals with T1DM can have NAFL, and waist-to-height ratio may help to identify those at higher risk,” she said.

The prevalence of NAFL among the adults with T1DM in the study was 11.6%, which is lower than the prevalence other studies reported in T2DM – 76% in a U.S. study – and in the general population – ranging from 19% to 46%. This underscores, Dr. Parente noted, the importance of using waist-to-height ratio in T1DM patients to determine the status of NAFL.

She said that few studies have investigated the consequences of NAFL in T1DM, pointing to two that linked NAFL with chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease in T1DM (Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1729-36; J Hepatol. 2010;53:713-8). “Most of the studies about the consequences of NAFL included people with T2DM,” she said. “From our research, we cannot conclude about the impact of NAFL in cardiovascular or kidney complications in our population because this is a cross-sectional study.”

That question may be answered by a future follow-up study of the ongoing FinnDiane study, she said.

The study is a “good reminder” that people with central adiposity and metabolic syndrome can develop NAFL disease, said Jeanne Marie Clark, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Even patients we may not think of having insulin resistance, such as those with T1DM.”

However, Dr. Clark added, “I do not think we can really determine which measure of central adiposity is best.” She noted that the study was “pretty small” with only 14 patients who had NAFL disease. “Waist-to-height ratio is certainly a reasonable option,” she added. “Waist circumference alone is known to be a strong predictor. I would say some measure is better than none, and it should be more routine in clinical practice.”

Dr. Parente disclosed financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Two of eight coauthors disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Elo Water, Fresenius, GE Healthcare, Medscape, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Peer-Voice, Sanofi, and Sciarc. The remaining coauthors had no disclosures.

Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

It follows that, as the prevalence of obesity among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) increases, so would the incidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), as it does in type 2 diabetes.

However, researchers in Finland report that the incidence of NAFL in T1DM is much lower, and that the use of the waist-to-height ratio to calculate midsection girth could be a low-cost alternative to MRI and computed tomography to more precisely diagnose NAFL in T1DM.

In a cross-sectional analysis of 121 adults with T1DM in the Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy study, known as FinnDiane, researchers from the University of Helsinki report in Diabetes Care that a waist-to-height ratio of 0.5 showed a relatively high rate of accuracy for identifying NAFL that was statistically significant (P = .04).

Lead author Erika B. Parente, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Folkhälsän Research Center in Helsinki, noted that the findings do not identify any causality between what the researchers called visceral adiposity and NAFL. “As long as they have accumulation of fat in the center of body and they can develop this low-grade inflammation that also goes to insulin-load sensitivity, people with T1DM can accumulate fat in the liver as do people with T2DM and the general population,” she said in an interview.

These findings build on her group’s previous work published in Scientific Reports showing a strong relationship between waist-to-height ratio and visceral fat percentage in adults with T1DM. The most recent FinnDiane analysis found no similar relationship between NAFL and fat tissue in the hips, arms and legs, and total adipose tissue.
 

Better than BMI as a measure

“We also found that waist-to-height ratio is better than body mass index to identify those individuals at higher risk of having NAFL,” Dr. Parente said. However, it’s not possible to predict which patients referred to imaging evaluation after being screened by waist-to-height ratio of 0.5 will surely have NAFL, she added.

That answer, she said, would require a longitudinal and cost-effectiveness study with larger population.

The waist-to-height ratio cutoff of 0.5 showed an 86% sensitivity and 55% specificity for NAFL, whereas BMI of 26.6 kg/m² showed an 79% sensitivity and 57% specificity.

“The most important message from our research is that health care professionals should be aware that individuals with T1DM can have NAFL, and waist-to-height ratio may help to identify those at higher risk,” she said.

The prevalence of NAFL among the adults with T1DM in the study was 11.6%, which is lower than the prevalence other studies reported in T2DM – 76% in a U.S. study – and in the general population – ranging from 19% to 46%. This underscores, Dr. Parente noted, the importance of using waist-to-height ratio in T1DM patients to determine the status of NAFL.

She said that few studies have investigated the consequences of NAFL in T1DM, pointing to two that linked NAFL with chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease in T1DM (Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1729-36; J Hepatol. 2010;53:713-8). “Most of the studies about the consequences of NAFL included people with T2DM,” she said. “From our research, we cannot conclude about the impact of NAFL in cardiovascular or kidney complications in our population because this is a cross-sectional study.”

That question may be answered by a future follow-up study of the ongoing FinnDiane study, she said.

The study is a “good reminder” that people with central adiposity and metabolic syndrome can develop NAFL disease, said Jeanne Marie Clark, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Even patients we may not think of having insulin resistance, such as those with T1DM.”

However, Dr. Clark added, “I do not think we can really determine which measure of central adiposity is best.” She noted that the study was “pretty small” with only 14 patients who had NAFL disease. “Waist-to-height ratio is certainly a reasonable option,” she added. “Waist circumference alone is known to be a strong predictor. I would say some measure is better than none, and it should be more routine in clinical practice.”

Dr. Parente disclosed financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Two of eight coauthors disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Elo Water, Fresenius, GE Healthcare, Medscape, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Peer-Voice, Sanofi, and Sciarc. The remaining coauthors had no disclosures.

Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

It follows that, as the prevalence of obesity among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) increases, so would the incidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL), as it does in type 2 diabetes.

However, researchers in Finland report that the incidence of NAFL in T1DM is much lower, and that the use of the waist-to-height ratio to calculate midsection girth could be a low-cost alternative to MRI and computed tomography to more precisely diagnose NAFL in T1DM.

In a cross-sectional analysis of 121 adults with T1DM in the Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy study, known as FinnDiane, researchers from the University of Helsinki report in Diabetes Care that a waist-to-height ratio of 0.5 showed a relatively high rate of accuracy for identifying NAFL that was statistically significant (P = .04).

Lead author Erika B. Parente, MD, PhD, a researcher at the Folkhälsän Research Center in Helsinki, noted that the findings do not identify any causality between what the researchers called visceral adiposity and NAFL. “As long as they have accumulation of fat in the center of body and they can develop this low-grade inflammation that also goes to insulin-load sensitivity, people with T1DM can accumulate fat in the liver as do people with T2DM and the general population,” she said in an interview.

These findings build on her group’s previous work published in Scientific Reports showing a strong relationship between waist-to-height ratio and visceral fat percentage in adults with T1DM. The most recent FinnDiane analysis found no similar relationship between NAFL and fat tissue in the hips, arms and legs, and total adipose tissue.
 

Better than BMI as a measure

“We also found that waist-to-height ratio is better than body mass index to identify those individuals at higher risk of having NAFL,” Dr. Parente said. However, it’s not possible to predict which patients referred to imaging evaluation after being screened by waist-to-height ratio of 0.5 will surely have NAFL, she added.

That answer, she said, would require a longitudinal and cost-effectiveness study with larger population.

The waist-to-height ratio cutoff of 0.5 showed an 86% sensitivity and 55% specificity for NAFL, whereas BMI of 26.6 kg/m² showed an 79% sensitivity and 57% specificity.

“The most important message from our research is that health care professionals should be aware that individuals with T1DM can have NAFL, and waist-to-height ratio may help to identify those at higher risk,” she said.

The prevalence of NAFL among the adults with T1DM in the study was 11.6%, which is lower than the prevalence other studies reported in T2DM – 76% in a U.S. study – and in the general population – ranging from 19% to 46%. This underscores, Dr. Parente noted, the importance of using waist-to-height ratio in T1DM patients to determine the status of NAFL.

She said that few studies have investigated the consequences of NAFL in T1DM, pointing to two that linked NAFL with chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease in T1DM (Diabetes Care. 2014;37:1729-36; J Hepatol. 2010;53:713-8). “Most of the studies about the consequences of NAFL included people with T2DM,” she said. “From our research, we cannot conclude about the impact of NAFL in cardiovascular or kidney complications in our population because this is a cross-sectional study.”

That question may be answered by a future follow-up study of the ongoing FinnDiane study, she said.

The study is a “good reminder” that people with central adiposity and metabolic syndrome can develop NAFL disease, said Jeanne Marie Clark, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Even patients we may not think of having insulin resistance, such as those with T1DM.”

However, Dr. Clark added, “I do not think we can really determine which measure of central adiposity is best.” She noted that the study was “pretty small” with only 14 patients who had NAFL disease. “Waist-to-height ratio is certainly a reasonable option,” she added. “Waist circumference alone is known to be a strong predictor. I would say some measure is better than none, and it should be more routine in clinical practice.”

Dr. Parente disclosed financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Two of eight coauthors disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Elo Water, Fresenius, GE Healthcare, Medscape, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Peer-Voice, Sanofi, and Sciarc. The remaining coauthors had no disclosures.

Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) for weight loss.

Specifically, this drug format and dosage are approved as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity to treat adults who have obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m²) or are overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m²) with at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Semaglutide “induces weight loss by reducing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and thereby helping people eat less and reduce their calorie intake,” according to a company statement.

Novo Nordisk plans to launch Wegovy later this month in the United States. The prescribing information can be found here.

This weight-loss drug is currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.

Several experts told Medscape that they believe the approval of this drug – as long as it is reimbursed – has the potential to change the paradigm of care when it comes to weight loss.


 

‘Game changer’ drug tested in STEP clinical trial program

The favorable FDA ruling is based on results from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program of four phase 3 clinical trials that tested the drug’s safety and efficacy in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity obesity who were randomized to receive a reduced a calorie meal plan and increased physical activity (placebo) or this lifestyle intervention plus semaglutide.

The four 68-week trials of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week versus placebo were published in February and March 2021.

As previously reported by this news organization, all trials were in adults with overweight or obesity:

•  was in 1,961 adults (N Engl J Med. 2021 March 18;384:989-1002).
•  was in 1,210 adults who also had diabetes (Lancet. 2021 Mar 13;397;971-84).
•  was in 611 adults, where those in the treatment group also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention (JAMA. 2021 Feb 24;325:1403-13.
•  was in 803 adults who had reached a target dose of 2.4 mg semaglutide after a 20-week run-in (and the trial examined further weight loss in the subsequent 48 weeks) (JAMA 2021 Mar 23;325:1414-25).

In the STEP 1, 2, and 4 trials of individuals with overweight and obesity, those in the semaglutide groups attained a 15%-18% weight loss over 68 weeks.

The dosage was well-tolerated. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal, and they were transient and mild or moderate in severity.

The side effects, contraindications, and a black box warning about thyroid C-cell tumors are spelled out in the prescribing information.

A coauthor of the STEP 1 trial, Rachel Batterham, MBBS, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London, said at the time of publication: “The findings of this study represent a major breakthrough for improving the health of people with obesity.”

“No other drug has come close to producing this level of weight loss – this really is a gamechanger. For the first time, people can achieve through drugs what was only possible through weight-loss surgery,” she added.
 

Welcome Addition, But Will Insurance Coverage, Price Thwart Access?

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and lead author of STEP 3, commented in an email to this news organization that “semaglutide 2.4 mg appears to be the breakthrough in weight management that healthcare providers and their patients with obesity have been waiting for.”

The mean 15% weight loss at 68 weeks is nearly twice what is seen with other FDA-approved anti-obesity medications, he noted, and moreover, 70% of patients taking semaglutide lost at least 10% of their initial weight, which is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in obesity-related type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and impaired quality of life.

And “nearly one-third of users are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome which eludes traditional diet and exercise interventions and which approaches weight losses produced by the most widely performed bariatric surgery, sleeve gastrectomy (with mean losses of 25% of initial weight at 1 year).” Dr. Wadden stressed.

Thus “the efficacy of semaglutide 2.4 mg, combined with its favorable safety profile, makes this medication a potential game changer,” he summarized, echoing Dr. Batterham.

However, insurance coverage and price could block uptake.

“I hope that the millions of people – in the U.S. and worldwide – who could benefit from this medication eventually will have access to it,” said Dr. Wadden. “In the U.S., the coverage of anti-obesity medications by insurers and employers will need to improve to ensure this happens, and the medication must be reasonably priced. These changes are critical to making this medication the game changer it could be.”

“This approval is an important development,” Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, who was not involved in the clinical trials of this drug, similarly wrote in an email.

“In a field with relatively few medication options, the availability of additional obesity pharmacotherapy agents is welcome,” he said. “In particular, semaglutide has shown impressive efficacy and safety data; as such it should be a valuable clinical option for many patients.”

However, it is concerning that “access to obesity treatments has traditionally been a challenge,” Dr. Kahan warned. “Novo Nordisk’s other obesity medication, Saxenda, has been a valuable tool, but one that exceedingly few patients are able to utilize due to minimal insurance reimbursement and very high cost.”

“It remains to be seen how accessible semaglutide will be for patients,” according to Dr. Kahan, “Still, if the challenge of limited coverage and high cost can be mitigated, this medication has a chance to significantly change the current paradigm of care, which until till now has included minimal use of pharmacotherapy outside specialty clinics,” he maintains.

Subcutaneous semaglutide at doses up to 1 mg/week (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), which comes as prefilled pens at doses of 0.5 mg or 1.0 mg, is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

The company is also applying for approval for a higher dose of semaglutide, 2 mg/week, for use in type 2 diabetes, and has just resubmitted its label expansion application to the FDA, after the agency issued a refusal to file letter in March.

And in September 2019, the FDA approved oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), in doses of 7 and 14 mg/day, to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, making it the first GLP-1 receptor agonist available in tablet form.
 

CVOT and oral format trials for obesity on the horizon

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years in patients with cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without type 2 diabetes. Participants will receive semaglutide in doses up to a maximum of 2.4 mg/week, or placebo, as an adjunct to lifestyle recommendations focused on cardiovascular risk reduction. The study is expected to complete in 2023.

And Novo Nordisk plans to initiate a global 68-week phase 3 trial in the second half of 2021 on the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide 50 mg compared with placebo in 1000 people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities.

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

This article was updated 6/7/21.

A 56-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes presents for evaluation of painful neuropathy. She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?

A. Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency

B. Diabetic neuropathy

C. Insulin neuritis

D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

The most likely cause

In this case, certainly considering vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B₁₂ levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B₁₂ levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.¹

Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
 

Research on TIN

Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.² All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.

Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.³

A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.

A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.

Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.⁴ One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.

Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.²

Pearl

Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.

2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.

3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.

4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.

A 56-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes presents for evaluation of painful neuropathy. She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?

A. Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency

B. Diabetic neuropathy

C. Insulin neuritis

D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

The most likely cause

In this case, certainly considering vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B₁₂ levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B₁₂ levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.¹

Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
 

Research on TIN

Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.² All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.

Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.³

A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.

A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.

Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.⁴ One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.

Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.²

Pearl

Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.

2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.

3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.

4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.

A 56-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes presents for evaluation of painful neuropathy. She has had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for the past 4 years. She initially presented with polyuria/polydipsia and a hemoglobin A1c level of 9.5. She has previously not tolerated metformin, and did not want to take any subsequent medications. She was seen 4 months ago and at that time had an A1c level of 12.5. She decided she wanted to really treat her diabetes as well as she could. She started consuming a low carbohydrate diet, restarted metformin and began using a continuous glucose monitor. She also started taking nighttime glargine insulin, and mealtime insulin apart. She reports she lost 20 pounds over the past 4 months, her blood sugars now run between 100-120 fasting, and up to 180 before meals. She has had a severe, sharp pain in both of her feet over the past month that is interfering with sleep and makes walking painful for her. An exam reveals hyperesthesia of both feet, and her A1c level is 7.5. What is the most likely cause of her neuropathic symptoms?

A. Vitamin B₁₂ deficiency

B. Diabetic neuropathy

C. Insulin neuritis

D. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

The most likely cause

In this case, certainly considering vitamin B₁₂ deficiency is reasonable. It is highly unlikely though, given the rapidity of onset of symptoms, and that the patient has been on metformin for a very short period of time. Chronic metformin use is associated with low B₁₂ levels, and the American Diabetes Association has advised that regular monitoring of vitamin B₁₂ levels should be done on patients who are on long-term metformin.¹

Diabetic neuropathy is also unlikely, given the rapidity of symptoms in this patient. What is most likely in this patient is treatment-induced neuropathy (TIN), first described with the name “insulin neuritis”.
 

Research on TIN

Gibbons and colleagues evaluated 16 patients with diabetes with recent marked, rapid improvement in glycemic control who developed a sudden, painful neuropathy.² All developed symptoms within 8 weeks of intensive glucose control, with 69% having autonomic dysfunction as well, and all developing worsening retinopathy.

Gibbons and Freeman did a retrospective study of patients referred to a diabetic neuropathy clinic over a 5-year period to try to understand how prevalent TIN is.³

A total of 954 patients were evaluated for diabetic neuropathy. Treatment induced neuropathy was defined as a painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction occurring within 8 weeks of intensified treatment and a drop of the A1c level greater than 2 over a 3-month period.

A total of 104 patients (10.9%) met the criteria for treatment induced neuropathy. Patients who had a decrease in A1c had a much greater chance of developing a painful or autonomic neuropathy than patients who had no change in A1c (P < .0001). The same patients had a much higher risk of developing retinopathy (P < .001). The greater the reduction in A1c, the greater the risk. Patients whose A1c decreased by 2%-3% over 3 months had an absolute risk of 20%, whereas those with a A1c decease of greater than 4% had an 80% absolute risk.

Siddique and colleagues reported on three cases with very different clinical presentations of TIN.⁴ One patient had an acute third nerve palsy, another patient had a lumbosacral radiculoplexus neuropathy, and the third patient presented with a diffuse painful sensory neuropathy and postural hypotension.

Most patients improve over time from their neuropathic symptoms, with better recovery in patients with type 1 diabetes.²

Pearl

Strongly consider treatment induced neuropathy in your patients with diabetes who present with acute painful neuropathy and/or autonomic dysfunction in the setting of rapid improvement of glucose control.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S90-102.

2. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Ann Neurol 2010; 67:534–41.

3. Gibbons CH and Freeman R. Brain. 2015;138:43-52.

4. Siddique N et al. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab Case Rep. 2020 Feb 26;2020:19-0140.

Hemoglobin A1c above 5% but below the prediabetes cutoff of 5.5% is an additional potential biomarker of subclinical atherosclerosis in people with low cardiovascular disease risk, according to an analysis of data on almost 4,000 middle-aged individuals.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

“If one looks at the incidence of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, we are not talking small numbers,” senior study author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “We are talking about between 45% and 82% of this middle-age population that already has atherosclerotic disease subclinically.

“Actually,” he added, “the disease was extensive in 5%-30% of these individuals of middle age.”

The study included 3,973 participants from the Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis study who did not have diabetes. A1c showed an association with the prevalence and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by two-dimensional ultrasound and coronary artery calcium score (CACS; P < .001). For example, those with A1c above 6.1% (133 participants) had a 33.1% rate of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, compared with 4.9% for those with A1c below 4.8% (243), the lowest-score group in the study.

Patients in the subprediabetes band, between 5.0% and 5.5%, had significantly higher rates of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis than did the lowest-score group: 8% in the 4.9%-5.0% group (375 participants); 9.9% in the 5.1%-5.2% range (687); 10.3% in the 5.3%-5.4% group (928); and 11.5% in the 5.5%-5.6% group (842).

Those in the 5.1%-5.2% and 5/3%-5.4% A1c groups had a 27% greater chance of having subclinical atherosclerosis, while those in the 5.5%-5.6% group had a 36% greater risk, according to an odds ratio analysis adjusted for established cardiovascular risk factors. The risks were even higher for patients with prediabetes, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A call for earlier intervention

Notably, the study found that fasting plasma glucose testing did not yield a similar association between A1c and atherosclerosis.

“The message is that we all talk about people when they are close to the development of cardiovascular events, and here we are talking about people who we should pay attention to much earlier,” said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation in Madrid, where the observational study originated said. “People should be sensitized to HbA1c much more than they would’ve been in the past, and I think this study actually validates that.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, noted in an interview that these findings support the utility of A1c for predicting CVD risk.

“I think more and more we should be ordering a HbA1c” during routine physical exams, Dr. Ballantyne said. “You don’t have to be obese to get it; there are lots of people, maybe they’re slightly overweight. It’s a reasonable test to be getting when you get to middle age and older to get an idea for assessing for both developing diabetes and also the presence of atherosclerosis and the risk for having cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston, coauthored an editorial comment on the study.

Clinicians typically start to manage CVD and diabetes risk “late in the process,” Dr. Ballantyne said. This study suggested that earlier use of antidiabetes therapies, namely peptide-1 agonists and semisynthetic glucagon-like peptide-2 inhibitors, may be warranted in patients with intermediate risk of CVD.

“It’s just more data for the rationale that, perhaps we could end up doing trials to show we can take high-risk people and prevent them from getting both heart disease and diabetes,” Dr. Ballantyne added. “Could we start a little earlier with better precision?”

These finding don’t yet call for a change in how cardiologists and endocrinologists manage patients on the cusp of prediabetes, said Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of Hollywood, Fla., and a professor at the University of Miami. “The endpoint of subclinical atherosclerosis does not necessarily translate into the harder endpoint of CVD events, although there is certainly reason to believe it does,” he said in an interview, noting that he’s often used CACS to stratify atherosclerotic CVD risk in patients.

Hemoglobin A1c above 5% but below the prediabetes cutoff of 5.5% is an additional potential biomarker of subclinical atherosclerosis in people with low cardiovascular disease risk, according to an analysis of data on almost 4,000 middle-aged individuals.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

“If one looks at the incidence of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, we are not talking small numbers,” senior study author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “We are talking about between 45% and 82% of this middle-age population that already has atherosclerotic disease subclinically.

“Actually,” he added, “the disease was extensive in 5%-30% of these individuals of middle age.”

The study included 3,973 participants from the Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis study who did not have diabetes. A1c showed an association with the prevalence and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by two-dimensional ultrasound and coronary artery calcium score (CACS; P < .001). For example, those with A1c above 6.1% (133 participants) had a 33.1% rate of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, compared with 4.9% for those with A1c below 4.8% (243), the lowest-score group in the study.

Patients in the subprediabetes band, between 5.0% and 5.5%, had significantly higher rates of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis than did the lowest-score group: 8% in the 4.9%-5.0% group (375 participants); 9.9% in the 5.1%-5.2% range (687); 10.3% in the 5.3%-5.4% group (928); and 11.5% in the 5.5%-5.6% group (842).

Those in the 5.1%-5.2% and 5/3%-5.4% A1c groups had a 27% greater chance of having subclinical atherosclerosis, while those in the 5.5%-5.6% group had a 36% greater risk, according to an odds ratio analysis adjusted for established cardiovascular risk factors. The risks were even higher for patients with prediabetes, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A call for earlier intervention

Notably, the study found that fasting plasma glucose testing did not yield a similar association between A1c and atherosclerosis.

“The message is that we all talk about people when they are close to the development of cardiovascular events, and here we are talking about people who we should pay attention to much earlier,” said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation in Madrid, where the observational study originated said. “People should be sensitized to HbA1c much more than they would’ve been in the past, and I think this study actually validates that.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, noted in an interview that these findings support the utility of A1c for predicting CVD risk.

“I think more and more we should be ordering a HbA1c” during routine physical exams, Dr. Ballantyne said. “You don’t have to be obese to get it; there are lots of people, maybe they’re slightly overweight. It’s a reasonable test to be getting when you get to middle age and older to get an idea for assessing for both developing diabetes and also the presence of atherosclerosis and the risk for having cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston, coauthored an editorial comment on the study.

Clinicians typically start to manage CVD and diabetes risk “late in the process,” Dr. Ballantyne said. This study suggested that earlier use of antidiabetes therapies, namely peptide-1 agonists and semisynthetic glucagon-like peptide-2 inhibitors, may be warranted in patients with intermediate risk of CVD.

“It’s just more data for the rationale that, perhaps we could end up doing trials to show we can take high-risk people and prevent them from getting both heart disease and diabetes,” Dr. Ballantyne added. “Could we start a little earlier with better precision?”

These finding don’t yet call for a change in how cardiologists and endocrinologists manage patients on the cusp of prediabetes, said Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of Hollywood, Fla., and a professor at the University of Miami. “The endpoint of subclinical atherosclerosis does not necessarily translate into the harder endpoint of CVD events, although there is certainly reason to believe it does,” he said in an interview, noting that he’s often used CACS to stratify atherosclerotic CVD risk in patients.

Hemoglobin A1c above 5% but below the prediabetes cutoff of 5.5% is an additional potential biomarker of subclinical atherosclerosis in people with low cardiovascular disease risk, according to an analysis of data on almost 4,000 middle-aged individuals.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

“If one looks at the incidence of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, we are not talking small numbers,” senior study author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “We are talking about between 45% and 82% of this middle-age population that already has atherosclerotic disease subclinically.

“Actually,” he added, “the disease was extensive in 5%-30% of these individuals of middle age.”

The study included 3,973 participants from the Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis study who did not have diabetes. A1c showed an association with the prevalence and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by two-dimensional ultrasound and coronary artery calcium score (CACS; P < .001). For example, those with A1c above 6.1% (133 participants) had a 33.1% rate of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis, compared with 4.9% for those with A1c below 4.8% (243), the lowest-score group in the study.

Patients in the subprediabetes band, between 5.0% and 5.5%, had significantly higher rates of generalized subclinical atherosclerosis than did the lowest-score group: 8% in the 4.9%-5.0% group (375 participants); 9.9% in the 5.1%-5.2% range (687); 10.3% in the 5.3%-5.4% group (928); and 11.5% in the 5.5%-5.6% group (842).

Those in the 5.1%-5.2% and 5/3%-5.4% A1c groups had a 27% greater chance of having subclinical atherosclerosis, while those in the 5.5%-5.6% group had a 36% greater risk, according to an odds ratio analysis adjusted for established cardiovascular risk factors. The risks were even higher for patients with prediabetes, the researchers reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A call for earlier intervention

Notably, the study found that fasting plasma glucose testing did not yield a similar association between A1c and atherosclerosis.

“The message is that we all talk about people when they are close to the development of cardiovascular events, and here we are talking about people who we should pay attention to much earlier,” said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation in Madrid, where the observational study originated said. “People should be sensitized to HbA1c much more than they would’ve been in the past, and I think this study actually validates that.”

Christie Ballantyne, MD, noted in an interview that these findings support the utility of A1c for predicting CVD risk.

“I think more and more we should be ordering a HbA1c” during routine physical exams, Dr. Ballantyne said. “You don’t have to be obese to get it; there are lots of people, maybe they’re slightly overweight. It’s a reasonable test to be getting when you get to middle age and older to get an idea for assessing for both developing diabetes and also the presence of atherosclerosis and the risk for having cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center in Houston, coauthored an editorial comment on the study.

Clinicians typically start to manage CVD and diabetes risk “late in the process,” Dr. Ballantyne said. This study suggested that earlier use of antidiabetes therapies, namely peptide-1 agonists and semisynthetic glucagon-like peptide-2 inhibitors, may be warranted in patients with intermediate risk of CVD.

“It’s just more data for the rationale that, perhaps we could end up doing trials to show we can take high-risk people and prevent them from getting both heart disease and diabetes,” Dr. Ballantyne added. “Could we start a little earlier with better precision?”

These finding don’t yet call for a change in how cardiologists and endocrinologists manage patients on the cusp of prediabetes, said Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of Hollywood, Fla., and a professor at the University of Miami. “The endpoint of subclinical atherosclerosis does not necessarily translate into the harder endpoint of CVD events, although there is certainly reason to believe it does,” he said in an interview, noting that he’s often used CACS to stratify atherosclerotic CVD risk in patients.

Although recent trial results have established the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as a key new part of the recommended multidrug treatment regimen for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the current U.S. cost for dapagliflozin means it has merely “intermediate” value when it comes to cost-effectiveness.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A typical regimen with dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) costs about $474/month or roughly $5,700/year based on Medicare pricing. After factoring in the incremental clinical benefits producing by dapagliflozin seen in the DAPA-HF pivotal trial that helped establish its role, this price produces a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of about $84,000, which puts dapagliflozin squarely in the intermediate range for value set in 2014 by a task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

This cost-effectiveness value depends largely on the proven efficacy of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular death among treated patients with HFrEF, and puts the drug’s value roughly on par with another agent recently approved to treat such patients, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which carries a cost-effectiveness value of about $45,000/QALY.

The U.S. cost per QALY for dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFrEF dwarfed the value numbers calculated for several other countries that were generally one-tenth this size. This disparity stemmed from both the relatively high price for dapagliflozin in the U.S. compared with other countries – nearly tenfold higher – and relatively higher costs for all types of U.S. medical care, Justin T. Parizo, MD, and coauthors said in a recent report. But the cost, and hence the cost per QALY, of dapagliflozin may soon drop because certain patents on the drug expired in October 2020, added Dr. Parizo, a cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, and associates. Despite the expired patents, as of June 2021 no generic form of dapagliflozin appeared available for U.S. sale.
 

Medicare patients pay about $1,630/year out-of-pocket

“A key caveat” to this finding for dapagliflozin is that being cost-effective “is not by itself a mandate for routine clinical use,” Derek S. Chew, MD, and Daniel B. Mark, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.

A major stumbling block for widespread U.S. prescribing of dapagliflozin to patients with HFrEF is its overall price tag for U.S. patients, estimated at $12 billion/year, as well as an out-of-pocket annual cost for individual Medicare patients of roughly $1,630/year. Adding this out-of-pocket cost to the copay for sacubitril/valsartan and two other much less expensive drug classes that together form the current mainstay, quadruple-drug regimen for HFrEF treatment means a potential annual cost paid by each Medicare patient of about $3,000, wrote Dr. Chew, a cardiologist, and Dr. Mark, a cardiologist and professor, both at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

They cited the precedent of the “unexpectedly slow” and “anemic” uptake of sacubitril/valsartan since its U.S. approval in 2015, a cost-effective agent with “comparable clinical effectiveness” to dapagliflozin. “Even with full inclusion [of sacubitril/valsartan] on formularies and elimination of preapproval requirements, use remains very low, and patient-borne out-of-pocket costs may be a key factor,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark. They cited a results from a study that showed abandonment of new prescriptions at retail U.S. pharmacies spiked to a 60% rate when out-of-pocket cost exceeded $500.
 

More than what patients ‘can afford or are willing to spend’

The estimated $3,000-plus total out-of-pocket cost currently borne by some Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who have to shell out for both sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin “appears to substantially exceed what many patients with heart failure can afford or are willing to spend,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.

Dr. Parizo and coauthors developed their cost-effectiveness model for dapagliflozin in treating HFrEF using primarily data collected in the DAPA-HF trial, which proved the efficacy of the drug for reducing cardiovascular deaths or acute heart failure events that led to hospitalization or intravenous outpatient treatment in more than 4,700 randomized patients with HFrEF. The trial enrolled roughly similar numbers of patients with or without type 2 diabetes.

The model showed an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83,650/QALY, which was about the same regardless of whether patients also had type 2 diabetes. On a more granular level, the cost-effectiveness value estimate was $78,483/QALY in patients with mild health-status impairment due to their heart failure, and $97,608/QALY in patients with moderate impairment, a finding that underscores the importance of starting dapagliflozin treatment early in the course of HFrEF when disease effects are less severe. The analysis could not address value in patients with more advanced heart failure and in New York Heart Association functional class IV because fewer than 1% of patients in DAPA-HF were in this category.

Drug cost was a major determinant of cost-effectiveness. A 50% drop in cost from the Medicare benchmark of $473.64/month resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $45,000/QALY (putting it into the high-value category based on the 2014 ACC/AHA formula), while a 50% rise in price yielded a value of nearly $123,000/QALY (still in the intermediate range, which spans from $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY). No other cost parameters had a meaningful effect on the cost-effectiveness calculation. The analyses also showed that using the basic cost assumptions, treatment with dapagliflozin needs to persist and remain effective for at least 44 months to produce a cost per QALY that’s less than $150,000. The authors stressed that their analysis considered heart failure effects and did not account for added benefit from treatment with dapagliflozin on preservation of renal function.

While it’s indisputable that treatment with dapagliflozin decreases health care costs by, for example, reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, each hospitalization costs just over $12,000, according to the assumptions made by Dr. Parizo and coauthors. But given dapagliflozin’s impact on this outcome, this cost saving translates into about $500/patient during 18 months on treatment (the median duration of treatment in DAPA-HF), which means the savings barely counterbalances the current cost of dapagliflozin treatment for 1 month, noted Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.

The DAPA-HF trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Parizo had no disclosures and none of his coauthors had a relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Chew had no disclosures. Dr. Mark has received research grants from HeartFlow, Mayo Clinic, and Merck.

[email protected]

Although recent trial results have established the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as a key new part of the recommended multidrug treatment regimen for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the current U.S. cost for dapagliflozin means it has merely “intermediate” value when it comes to cost-effectiveness.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A typical regimen with dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) costs about $474/month or roughly $5,700/year based on Medicare pricing. After factoring in the incremental clinical benefits producing by dapagliflozin seen in the DAPA-HF pivotal trial that helped establish its role, this price produces a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of about $84,000, which puts dapagliflozin squarely in the intermediate range for value set in 2014 by a task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

This cost-effectiveness value depends largely on the proven efficacy of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular death among treated patients with HFrEF, and puts the drug’s value roughly on par with another agent recently approved to treat such patients, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which carries a cost-effectiveness value of about $45,000/QALY.

The U.S. cost per QALY for dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFrEF dwarfed the value numbers calculated for several other countries that were generally one-tenth this size. This disparity stemmed from both the relatively high price for dapagliflozin in the U.S. compared with other countries – nearly tenfold higher – and relatively higher costs for all types of U.S. medical care, Justin T. Parizo, MD, and coauthors said in a recent report. But the cost, and hence the cost per QALY, of dapagliflozin may soon drop because certain patents on the drug expired in October 2020, added Dr. Parizo, a cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, and associates. Despite the expired patents, as of June 2021 no generic form of dapagliflozin appeared available for U.S. sale.
 

Medicare patients pay about $1,630/year out-of-pocket

“A key caveat” to this finding for dapagliflozin is that being cost-effective “is not by itself a mandate for routine clinical use,” Derek S. Chew, MD, and Daniel B. Mark, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.

A major stumbling block for widespread U.S. prescribing of dapagliflozin to patients with HFrEF is its overall price tag for U.S. patients, estimated at $12 billion/year, as well as an out-of-pocket annual cost for individual Medicare patients of roughly $1,630/year. Adding this out-of-pocket cost to the copay for sacubitril/valsartan and two other much less expensive drug classes that together form the current mainstay, quadruple-drug regimen for HFrEF treatment means a potential annual cost paid by each Medicare patient of about $3,000, wrote Dr. Chew, a cardiologist, and Dr. Mark, a cardiologist and professor, both at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

They cited the precedent of the “unexpectedly slow” and “anemic” uptake of sacubitril/valsartan since its U.S. approval in 2015, a cost-effective agent with “comparable clinical effectiveness” to dapagliflozin. “Even with full inclusion [of sacubitril/valsartan] on formularies and elimination of preapproval requirements, use remains very low, and patient-borne out-of-pocket costs may be a key factor,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark. They cited a results from a study that showed abandonment of new prescriptions at retail U.S. pharmacies spiked to a 60% rate when out-of-pocket cost exceeded $500.
 

More than what patients ‘can afford or are willing to spend’

The estimated $3,000-plus total out-of-pocket cost currently borne by some Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who have to shell out for both sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin “appears to substantially exceed what many patients with heart failure can afford or are willing to spend,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.

Dr. Parizo and coauthors developed their cost-effectiveness model for dapagliflozin in treating HFrEF using primarily data collected in the DAPA-HF trial, which proved the efficacy of the drug for reducing cardiovascular deaths or acute heart failure events that led to hospitalization or intravenous outpatient treatment in more than 4,700 randomized patients with HFrEF. The trial enrolled roughly similar numbers of patients with or without type 2 diabetes.

The model showed an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83,650/QALY, which was about the same regardless of whether patients also had type 2 diabetes. On a more granular level, the cost-effectiveness value estimate was $78,483/QALY in patients with mild health-status impairment due to their heart failure, and $97,608/QALY in patients with moderate impairment, a finding that underscores the importance of starting dapagliflozin treatment early in the course of HFrEF when disease effects are less severe. The analysis could not address value in patients with more advanced heart failure and in New York Heart Association functional class IV because fewer than 1% of patients in DAPA-HF were in this category.

Drug cost was a major determinant of cost-effectiveness. A 50% drop in cost from the Medicare benchmark of $473.64/month resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $45,000/QALY (putting it into the high-value category based on the 2014 ACC/AHA formula), while a 50% rise in price yielded a value of nearly $123,000/QALY (still in the intermediate range, which spans from $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY). No other cost parameters had a meaningful effect on the cost-effectiveness calculation. The analyses also showed that using the basic cost assumptions, treatment with dapagliflozin needs to persist and remain effective for at least 44 months to produce a cost per QALY that’s less than $150,000. The authors stressed that their analysis considered heart failure effects and did not account for added benefit from treatment with dapagliflozin on preservation of renal function.

While it’s indisputable that treatment with dapagliflozin decreases health care costs by, for example, reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, each hospitalization costs just over $12,000, according to the assumptions made by Dr. Parizo and coauthors. But given dapagliflozin’s impact on this outcome, this cost saving translates into about $500/patient during 18 months on treatment (the median duration of treatment in DAPA-HF), which means the savings barely counterbalances the current cost of dapagliflozin treatment for 1 month, noted Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.

The DAPA-HF trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Parizo had no disclosures and none of his coauthors had a relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Chew had no disclosures. Dr. Mark has received research grants from HeartFlow, Mayo Clinic, and Merck.

[email protected]

Although recent trial results have established the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as a key new part of the recommended multidrug treatment regimen for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the current U.S. cost for dapagliflozin means it has merely “intermediate” value when it comes to cost-effectiveness.

adventtr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A typical regimen with dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) costs about $474/month or roughly $5,700/year based on Medicare pricing. After factoring in the incremental clinical benefits producing by dapagliflozin seen in the DAPA-HF pivotal trial that helped establish its role, this price produces a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of about $84,000, which puts dapagliflozin squarely in the intermediate range for value set in 2014 by a task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

This cost-effectiveness value depends largely on the proven efficacy of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular death among treated patients with HFrEF, and puts the drug’s value roughly on par with another agent recently approved to treat such patients, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which carries a cost-effectiveness value of about $45,000/QALY.

The U.S. cost per QALY for dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFrEF dwarfed the value numbers calculated for several other countries that were generally one-tenth this size. This disparity stemmed from both the relatively high price for dapagliflozin in the U.S. compared with other countries – nearly tenfold higher – and relatively higher costs for all types of U.S. medical care, Justin T. Parizo, MD, and coauthors said in a recent report. But the cost, and hence the cost per QALY, of dapagliflozin may soon drop because certain patents on the drug expired in October 2020, added Dr. Parizo, a cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, and associates. Despite the expired patents, as of June 2021 no generic form of dapagliflozin appeared available for U.S. sale.
 

Medicare patients pay about $1,630/year out-of-pocket

“A key caveat” to this finding for dapagliflozin is that being cost-effective “is not by itself a mandate for routine clinical use,” Derek S. Chew, MD, and Daniel B. Mark, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.

A major stumbling block for widespread U.S. prescribing of dapagliflozin to patients with HFrEF is its overall price tag for U.S. patients, estimated at $12 billion/year, as well as an out-of-pocket annual cost for individual Medicare patients of roughly $1,630/year. Adding this out-of-pocket cost to the copay for sacubitril/valsartan and two other much less expensive drug classes that together form the current mainstay, quadruple-drug regimen for HFrEF treatment means a potential annual cost paid by each Medicare patient of about $3,000, wrote Dr. Chew, a cardiologist, and Dr. Mark, a cardiologist and professor, both at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

They cited the precedent of the “unexpectedly slow” and “anemic” uptake of sacubitril/valsartan since its U.S. approval in 2015, a cost-effective agent with “comparable clinical effectiveness” to dapagliflozin. “Even with full inclusion [of sacubitril/valsartan] on formularies and elimination of preapproval requirements, use remains very low, and patient-borne out-of-pocket costs may be a key factor,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark. They cited a results from a study that showed abandonment of new prescriptions at retail U.S. pharmacies spiked to a 60% rate when out-of-pocket cost exceeded $500.
 

More than what patients ‘can afford or are willing to spend’

The estimated $3,000-plus total out-of-pocket cost currently borne by some Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who have to shell out for both sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin “appears to substantially exceed what many patients with heart failure can afford or are willing to spend,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.

Dr. Parizo and coauthors developed their cost-effectiveness model for dapagliflozin in treating HFrEF using primarily data collected in the DAPA-HF trial, which proved the efficacy of the drug for reducing cardiovascular deaths or acute heart failure events that led to hospitalization or intravenous outpatient treatment in more than 4,700 randomized patients with HFrEF. The trial enrolled roughly similar numbers of patients with or without type 2 diabetes.

The model showed an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83,650/QALY, which was about the same regardless of whether patients also had type 2 diabetes. On a more granular level, the cost-effectiveness value estimate was $78,483/QALY in patients with mild health-status impairment due to their heart failure, and $97,608/QALY in patients with moderate impairment, a finding that underscores the importance of starting dapagliflozin treatment early in the course of HFrEF when disease effects are less severe. The analysis could not address value in patients with more advanced heart failure and in New York Heart Association functional class IV because fewer than 1% of patients in DAPA-HF were in this category.

Drug cost was a major determinant of cost-effectiveness. A 50% drop in cost from the Medicare benchmark of $473.64/month resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $45,000/QALY (putting it into the high-value category based on the 2014 ACC/AHA formula), while a 50% rise in price yielded a value of nearly $123,000/QALY (still in the intermediate range, which spans from $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY). No other cost parameters had a meaningful effect on the cost-effectiveness calculation. The analyses also showed that using the basic cost assumptions, treatment with dapagliflozin needs to persist and remain effective for at least 44 months to produce a cost per QALY that’s less than $150,000. The authors stressed that their analysis considered heart failure effects and did not account for added benefit from treatment with dapagliflozin on preservation of renal function.

While it’s indisputable that treatment with dapagliflozin decreases health care costs by, for example, reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, each hospitalization costs just over $12,000, according to the assumptions made by Dr. Parizo and coauthors. But given dapagliflozin’s impact on this outcome, this cost saving translates into about $500/patient during 18 months on treatment (the median duration of treatment in DAPA-HF), which means the savings barely counterbalances the current cost of dapagliflozin treatment for 1 month, noted Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.

The DAPA-HF trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Parizo had no disclosures and none of his coauthors had a relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Chew had no disclosures. Dr. Mark has received research grants from HeartFlow, Mayo Clinic, and Merck.

[email protected]

People with prediabetes, defined by having a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, had a significantly increased rate of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and incident chronic kidney disease in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.

The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
 

‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’

“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”

Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.

The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.

The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.

The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).

In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.

Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management

The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.

[email protected]

People with prediabetes, defined by having a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, had a significantly increased rate of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and incident chronic kidney disease in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.

The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
 

‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’

“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”

Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.

The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.

The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.

The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).

In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.

Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management

The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.

[email protected]

People with prediabetes, defined by having a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, had a significantly increased rate of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and incident chronic kidney disease in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.

The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
 

‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’

“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”

Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.

The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.

The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.

The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).

In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.

Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management

The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.

[email protected]