Diabetes

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

For persons with obesity who lost a substantial amount of weight on a low-calorie diet, the combination of exercise and medication significantly improved weight-loss maintenance, and more so than either strategy alone, according to results of a randomized, head-to-head trial.

A year after starting moderate to vigorous exercise coupled with liraglutide treatment, study participants had a weight loss 9.5 kg more than those who received placebo and usual activity, study results show.

Reductions in both weight and fat loss seen with exercise and liraglutide was roughly twice as much as what was achieved at 1 year with the strategies of liraglutide or exercise alone, according to authors of the study, which appears in the New England Journal of Medicine .

Although the findings may not apply to those who can’t or won’t perform moderate to vigorous exercise, the intervention in this study was nevertheless feasible in this group of persons with obesity who had a very low level of fitness, according to the authors.
 

Hope for healthy weight loss maintenance

Investigator Signe S. Torekov, PhD, said in an interview that these results provide hope that more-intensive exercise regimens, with or without medication, can be useful and well accepted among individuals struggling with obesity.

“When we started our study, we were told, ‘you are never going to have people with obesity exercising that much, and for that long’ – but people were actually very happy about the exercise,” said Dr. Torekov, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the University of Copenhagen.

“If you actually set up a program where people are monitored and you have a feedback system, then exercise is an excellent component in obesity treatment that should be much more actively used – not only for its weight-lowering component, but also for improving health and quality of life,” she said in an interview.

Weight-management specialist John D. Clark, MD, PhD, said results of this study can be used to help inform patients about how successful different strategies incorporating exercise and medication may be following initial weight loss.

“When patients plateau on a consistent, calorie-restricted dietary plan, we can educate them and manage expectations about what options may be available to them after their initial weight loss,” said Dr. Clark, of the University of Texas, Dallas.

“If the patient’s goal specifically is weight loss at all costs, then I may suggest, ‘let’s consider liraglutide or liraglutide in combination with exercise,’ ” he said in an interview. “Exercise improves body composition, even if it may not on its own be as successful in the next phase of their weight-loss journey, as shown in this study.”
 

Obesity and weight-loss challenges

Although it’s not uncommon for obese patients to lose a large amount of weight, keeping the weight off is frequently a challenge unless the patient follows a structured weight maintenance program, according to Dr. Torekov and coauthors.

The rapid weight regain seen in many obese patients could be a result of reductions in total energy expenditure or increased appetite. Exercise is one strategy to sustain weight loss, though according to the authors, very few studies have looked at exercise in isolation to quantify its contribution to maintenance.

Accordingly, the present study sought to determine whether exercise, medication, or the combination thereof works best to keep weight off.

The study incorporated liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist indicated for chronic weight management, along with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, in adults with elevated body mass index and at least one weight-related comorbidity.

The investigator-initiated phase 3 trial included 215 adults with a body mass index of 32-43. Individuals with type 2 diabetes were excluded. All participants followed an 8-week, low-calorie diet comprising 800 calories per day.

Participants who lost 5% or more of their body weight were then randomized to 1 year of exercise plus liraglutide, exercise plus placebo, usual activity plus liraglutide, or usual activity plus placebo.

The exercise program – which was structured but flexible, according to investigators – included group exercise sessions that incorporated 30 minutes of indoor cycling and 15 minutes of circuit training 2 days each week. Participants wore heart rate monitors during exercise to make sure they reached targets for moderate to vigorous intensity.

Instructors trained in exercise physiology planned and monitored individualized exercise programs for each participant in the exercise-medication or exercise-only arms of the study.

Participants in all groups attended 12 one-on-one consultations where body weight was measured and dietetic support was provided.
 

Weight loss with exercise and medication

Out of 215 individuals enrolled in the study, 195 lost at least 5% of body weight and continued on to the randomized portion, the investigators reported. During the diet phase, they lost a mean of 13.1 kg, translating into a 12% mean reduction in body weight.

The mean frequency of exercise was 2.4 times per week in the exercise-plus-medication group and 2.5 times per week in the exercise-only group. About one-third of the exercise took place in the group sessions, and there was no difference in relative intensity between group and individual exercise regimens, the investigators said.

Individuals in the exercise plus medication group continued to lose more weight, such that, at the end of 1 year, the weight loss decreased even further, by a mean of –3.4 kg. By contrast, weight increased by a mean of 6.1 kg for the placebo group, adding up to a treatment difference of –9.5 kg (95% confidence interval, –13.1 to –5.9; P < .001), according to the report.

That treatment effect was also seen, but more muted, in the exercise- and liraglutide-only groups, at –4.1 kg and –6.8 kg, respectively.

A significant treatment effect was observed for exercise plus liraglutide, compared with exercise alone, at –5.4 kg (P = .004), while the treatment effect for the combination versus liraglutide alone was not significant at –2.7 kg (P = .13), the data show.

Body-fat reduction at 52 weeks was –3.9 percentage points for exercise plus liraglutide as compared with placebo, or roughly twice the reductions seen in the exercise- and liraglutide-alone groups, the investigators said, adding that the combination preserved lean mass.

Reductions in hemoglobin A1c, which are generally thought to reduce diabetes risk, were reduced in both the liraglutide and liraglutide-exercise combination group, according to their report.

The research was supported in part by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

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

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

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

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

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

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

Hispanic diabetes patients are significantly less likely than Black or White patients to receive preventive guideline-based care soon after diagnosis, based on data from more than 7,000 individuals.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care remain a pervasive health problem, and minorities including non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experience higher rates of complications, including retinopathy and neuropathy, compared with other groups, Felippe Ottoni Marcondes, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine.

Data from previous studies have shown that diabetes patients who receive guideline-directed preventive care soon after diagnosis can reduce their risk of complications, they said.

To identify disparities in the provision of guideline-directed preventive care, the researchers analyzed data from 7,341 individuals who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2017. They reviewed associations between race/ethnicity and visits to an eye specialist, a foot specialist, and checks of blood pressure and cholesterol in the past year among individuals diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years.

Overall, Hispanics had significantly lower rates of insurance coverage (75.9%), compared with non-Hispanic Whites (93.2%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (88.1%; P < .001).

Hispanics also were significantly less likely than Whites to have had a prior year eye exam (odds ratio, 0.80) and blood pressure check (OR, 0.45), after controlling for variables including age, sex, socioeconomic status, health insurance, general health status, U.S. region, marital status, body mass index, and various comorbidities.

Although insurance coverage mediated 42.8% of the total effect of race/ethnicity on annual eye specialist visits for Hispanics as compared with Whites, there was no significant effect for Blacks, compared with Whites.
 

COVID concerns impact diabetes disparities

“As the diabetes epidemic continues in the U.S., it is important to bring to the front of the diabetes care conversation racial/ethnic disparities that persisted or have been only partially addressed,” Dr. Marcondes said in an interview. “It is also important to emphasize that patients with diabetes are at higher risk for COVID-19 hospitalizations, complications, and death, and COVID-19 has disproportionately affected racial/ethnic minorities, so racial/ethnic minorities with diabetes have compounded risk of complications not only from diabetes but also from COVID-19.

“Importantly, our study highlights disparities in health care that are likely the product of systemic inequalities in access to care and insurance coverage at a moment when conversations about the race/racism and their health impact are fresh in the minds of public and health policy officials and the general public,” he emphasized.

“Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am surprised by our findings,” Dr. Marcondes said. “We expected to see some differences in the receipt of care for racial/ethnic minorities compared to white individuals for those recently diagnosed with diabetes, and that is exactly what our findings show.”

However, “what was perhaps intriguing is that disparities in the receipt of guideline-directed care were greater for Hispanic compared to White individuals than for Black compared to White individuals,” said Dr. Marcondes. “The causes of these differences are many. Hispanic individuals are less likely than White and Black persons to have insurance coverage.” Other unmeasured factors include language barriers that Hispanic individuals may face, as well as the bias and discrimination experienced by Hispanic and Black individuals alike.
 

Focus on equitable early intervention

“There is plenty of evidence in the medical literature that Black and Hispanic individuals with diabetes, as well as other minorities, have higher risk of complications of diabetes such as retinopathy, nephropathy, as well as cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure and cholesterol,” Dr. Marcondes said. “Yet, complications in the time that immediately follows the diagnosis of diabetes are likely to be low.”

To reduce the risk of complications in the future, “physicians and health providers need to focus on providing equitable, guideline-directed treatment for their minority patients recently diagnosed with diabetes,” Dr. Marcondes emphasized. “Intervening early in the disease course will hopefully lead to a decrease in the rate of complications for racial/ethnic minorities. Clinicians, especially primary care physicians and providers, need to be aware that they are often the first encounter of many patients with the health care system. Effective communication and unbiased language on the part of clinicians will lead to stronger patient-physician relationships that foster opportunity to discuss disease prevention.

“Additional research is needed to evaluate the attitudes and biases of primary care providers and access the impact of patient navigation resources when treating minority patients with diabetes,” he concluded.

Digging Deeper into Disparities
“In diabetes, there are known racial and ethnic disparities such that minorities receive suboptimal screening and treatment, and have worse outcomes,” said Scott J. Pilla, MD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, in an interview. 

“This study examines disparities in diabetes preventive measures in the U.S. using a national survey (NHIS) over the past decade. They took the important step of stratifying their analyses by health insurance and socioeconomic status which, in addition to race, may have a large impact,” said Dr. Pilla. However, “One critique of the poster is that it is unclear whether the researchers weighted their analyses to account for the nationally representative sampling of the NHIS survey,” he noted. 
Dr. Pilla said the finding that Hispanic patients had fewer diabetes preventive measures lines up with previous research in this area. 

“I was surprised that the disparities did not extend to black patients, who have been found to also receive suboptimal care compared to white patients in other studies,” he noted. 

The message for clinical practice: “Minorities with diabetes are at a higher risk of adverse diabetes outcomes and may need extra support and resources to achieve their evidence-based diabetes prevention,” Dr. Pilla said. 

“More research is needed to understand the root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes management to tease apart possible contributors including health insurance coverage, socioeconomic factors, cultural and community factors, and systemic racism. This will help inform targeted approaches to reducing disparities in diabetes care,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pilla had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released a draft of updated recommendations for screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). If accepted as written, the new recommendation will be to “screen all asymptomatic adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.” Upon diagnosis of prediabetes, the recommendation is to offer or refer patients to preventive interventions.

This new recommendation would replace the one from 2015, which recommended screening adults aged 40-70 who are overweight or obese, lowering the age at which screening begins by 5 years. It would also replace the recommendation of referral to intensive behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and exercise.¹

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) identifies A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or oral glucose tolerance tests as appropriate tests for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 DM, and the new draft recommendation does not provide a preference for method of screening.²

The USPSTF’s draft recommendation could expand screening with the hope of identifying patients with prediabetes, or those with diabetes who are asymptomatic, with the intent of beginning treatment before there are serious complications.
 

Unknown diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis common

It has been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 12% of U.S. adults had DM as of 2015, though nearly 24% were not aware that they had it. Also, according to the CDC, the prevalence of DM increases with age and is higher in those with less than a high school education. The same report indicates that more than 30% of U.S. adults have prediabetes, and with less than 12% of those individuals are aware of it.³ A possible explanation for a patient’s being unaware of a diagnosis could be that it has been documented in a chart but the patient does not know such information is in his or her health record. According to the evidence provided for the updated recommendation, earlier diagnosis may have an important benefit in preventing serious complications.

A modeling study compared simulated screening strategies and found that the most optimal screening strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective begins between the ages of 30 and 45, with rescreening every 3-5 years. Further models have led researchers to conclude that early diagnosis can lead to decreased cardiovascular events as well as an opportunity for multifactorial treatment.¹ For this reason, it makes sense to expand the ages of screening for obese and overweight individuals.
 

Treatment recommendations are more flexible

The change in treatment recommendations for a new diagnosis of prediabetes is potentially more useful. It may not be feasible or reasonable for physicians to always provide or refer their patients for intensive behavior interventions. The updated recommendation would allow for the inclusion of not only behavioral counseling and health education, but also potential medication options that are currently available but not approved, or that may be available in the future. The evidence review seemed to be mixed in outcome in this area, so the increased flexibility will likely allow for future opportunities.

Screening criteria may be too narrow

This recommendation, does not, however, provide any guidance on screening of individuals who have other risk factors besides a body mass index consistent with overweight or obesity. It seems that this may be a missed opportunity.

The draft statement clearly indicates that there are other factors associated with increased risk of developing DM, but does not consider these factors in determining which patients should be screened. Both the ADA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) have recommendations for universal screening for all adults 45 and older, acknowledging that incidence of DM increases with age. The ADA also recommends screening individuals who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor regardless of age. The AACE recommends screening all individuals for risk factors regardless of age.

The current and draft recommendations by the USPSTF do not address other risk factors and indicate only that further research is needed to understand the risk associated with DM and the natural history of pre-DM and who may progress to DM or revert to normoglycemia. Without comment on other risk factors or universal screening with age, the USPSTF recommendation potentially would not be sensitive enough to capture all those who may meet criteria for prediabetes or DM.^2,4

In addition to not addressing other risk factors and screening for those of normal and underweight BMI, the USPSTF recommendation does not address frequency of screening. The recommendations from both the ADA and the AACE indicate screening at 3-year intervals for those who are eligible – for any reason. The supporting evidence review did not seem to address this aspect, and so it is understandable that there was no comment. However, I feel this will lead physicians to turn to the other guidelines for guidance where there is disagreement in other aspects.

Ultimately, the draft updated recommendation will provide physicians with the opportunity to identify more patients with prediabetes and DM. This will be wonderful in terms of being able to offer treatments and lifestyle interventions to decrease the morbidity patients would face were these conditions not diagnosed. I hope that future recommendations will also address risk factors in addition to BMI as well as frequency of screening for those who remain at increased risk but initially screen negative.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 16.

2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002.

3. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

4. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Hadelsman Y et al. Endocr Pract. 2015 Apr. 1-87. doi: 10.4158/EP15672.GL.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released a draft of updated recommendations for screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). If accepted as written, the new recommendation will be to “screen all asymptomatic adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.” Upon diagnosis of prediabetes, the recommendation is to offer or refer patients to preventive interventions.

This new recommendation would replace the one from 2015, which recommended screening adults aged 40-70 who are overweight or obese, lowering the age at which screening begins by 5 years. It would also replace the recommendation of referral to intensive behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and exercise.¹

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) identifies A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or oral glucose tolerance tests as appropriate tests for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 DM, and the new draft recommendation does not provide a preference for method of screening.²

The USPSTF’s draft recommendation could expand screening with the hope of identifying patients with prediabetes, or those with diabetes who are asymptomatic, with the intent of beginning treatment before there are serious complications.
 

Unknown diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis common

It has been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 12% of U.S. adults had DM as of 2015, though nearly 24% were not aware that they had it. Also, according to the CDC, the prevalence of DM increases with age and is higher in those with less than a high school education. The same report indicates that more than 30% of U.S. adults have prediabetes, and with less than 12% of those individuals are aware of it.³ A possible explanation for a patient’s being unaware of a diagnosis could be that it has been documented in a chart but the patient does not know such information is in his or her health record. According to the evidence provided for the updated recommendation, earlier diagnosis may have an important benefit in preventing serious complications.

A modeling study compared simulated screening strategies and found that the most optimal screening strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective begins between the ages of 30 and 45, with rescreening every 3-5 years. Further models have led researchers to conclude that early diagnosis can lead to decreased cardiovascular events as well as an opportunity for multifactorial treatment.¹ For this reason, it makes sense to expand the ages of screening for obese and overweight individuals.
 

Treatment recommendations are more flexible

The change in treatment recommendations for a new diagnosis of prediabetes is potentially more useful. It may not be feasible or reasonable for physicians to always provide or refer their patients for intensive behavior interventions. The updated recommendation would allow for the inclusion of not only behavioral counseling and health education, but also potential medication options that are currently available but not approved, or that may be available in the future. The evidence review seemed to be mixed in outcome in this area, so the increased flexibility will likely allow for future opportunities.

Screening criteria may be too narrow

This recommendation, does not, however, provide any guidance on screening of individuals who have other risk factors besides a body mass index consistent with overweight or obesity. It seems that this may be a missed opportunity.

The draft statement clearly indicates that there are other factors associated with increased risk of developing DM, but does not consider these factors in determining which patients should be screened. Both the ADA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) have recommendations for universal screening for all adults 45 and older, acknowledging that incidence of DM increases with age. The ADA also recommends screening individuals who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor regardless of age. The AACE recommends screening all individuals for risk factors regardless of age.

The current and draft recommendations by the USPSTF do not address other risk factors and indicate only that further research is needed to understand the risk associated with DM and the natural history of pre-DM and who may progress to DM or revert to normoglycemia. Without comment on other risk factors or universal screening with age, the USPSTF recommendation potentially would not be sensitive enough to capture all those who may meet criteria for prediabetes or DM.^2,4

In addition to not addressing other risk factors and screening for those of normal and underweight BMI, the USPSTF recommendation does not address frequency of screening. The recommendations from both the ADA and the AACE indicate screening at 3-year intervals for those who are eligible – for any reason. The supporting evidence review did not seem to address this aspect, and so it is understandable that there was no comment. However, I feel this will lead physicians to turn to the other guidelines for guidance where there is disagreement in other aspects.

Ultimately, the draft updated recommendation will provide physicians with the opportunity to identify more patients with prediabetes and DM. This will be wonderful in terms of being able to offer treatments and lifestyle interventions to decrease the morbidity patients would face were these conditions not diagnosed. I hope that future recommendations will also address risk factors in addition to BMI as well as frequency of screening for those who remain at increased risk but initially screen negative.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 16.

2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002.

3. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

4. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Hadelsman Y et al. Endocr Pract. 2015 Apr. 1-87. doi: 10.4158/EP15672.GL.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently released a draft of updated recommendations for screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). If accepted as written, the new recommendation will be to “screen all asymptomatic adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.” Upon diagnosis of prediabetes, the recommendation is to offer or refer patients to preventive interventions.

This new recommendation would replace the one from 2015, which recommended screening adults aged 40-70 who are overweight or obese, lowering the age at which screening begins by 5 years. It would also replace the recommendation of referral to intensive behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and exercise.¹

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) identifies A1c, fasting plasma glucose, or oral glucose tolerance tests as appropriate tests for the diagnosis of prediabetes and type 2 DM, and the new draft recommendation does not provide a preference for method of screening.²

The USPSTF’s draft recommendation could expand screening with the hope of identifying patients with prediabetes, or those with diabetes who are asymptomatic, with the intent of beginning treatment before there are serious complications.
 

Unknown diabetes or prediabetes diagnosis common

It has been estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 12% of U.S. adults had DM as of 2015, though nearly 24% were not aware that they had it. Also, according to the CDC, the prevalence of DM increases with age and is higher in those with less than a high school education. The same report indicates that more than 30% of U.S. adults have prediabetes, and with less than 12% of those individuals are aware of it.³ A possible explanation for a patient’s being unaware of a diagnosis could be that it has been documented in a chart but the patient does not know such information is in his or her health record. According to the evidence provided for the updated recommendation, earlier diagnosis may have an important benefit in preventing serious complications.

A modeling study compared simulated screening strategies and found that the most optimal screening strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective begins between the ages of 30 and 45, with rescreening every 3-5 years. Further models have led researchers to conclude that early diagnosis can lead to decreased cardiovascular events as well as an opportunity for multifactorial treatment.¹ For this reason, it makes sense to expand the ages of screening for obese and overweight individuals.
 

Treatment recommendations are more flexible

The change in treatment recommendations for a new diagnosis of prediabetes is potentially more useful. It may not be feasible or reasonable for physicians to always provide or refer their patients for intensive behavior interventions. The updated recommendation would allow for the inclusion of not only behavioral counseling and health education, but also potential medication options that are currently available but not approved, or that may be available in the future. The evidence review seemed to be mixed in outcome in this area, so the increased flexibility will likely allow for future opportunities.

Screening criteria may be too narrow

This recommendation, does not, however, provide any guidance on screening of individuals who have other risk factors besides a body mass index consistent with overweight or obesity. It seems that this may be a missed opportunity.

The draft statement clearly indicates that there are other factors associated with increased risk of developing DM, but does not consider these factors in determining which patients should be screened. Both the ADA and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) have recommendations for universal screening for all adults 45 and older, acknowledging that incidence of DM increases with age. The ADA also recommends screening individuals who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor regardless of age. The AACE recommends screening all individuals for risk factors regardless of age.

The current and draft recommendations by the USPSTF do not address other risk factors and indicate only that further research is needed to understand the risk associated with DM and the natural history of pre-DM and who may progress to DM or revert to normoglycemia. Without comment on other risk factors or universal screening with age, the USPSTF recommendation potentially would not be sensitive enough to capture all those who may meet criteria for prediabetes or DM.^2,4

In addition to not addressing other risk factors and screening for those of normal and underweight BMI, the USPSTF recommendation does not address frequency of screening. The recommendations from both the ADA and the AACE indicate screening at 3-year intervals for those who are eligible – for any reason. The supporting evidence review did not seem to address this aspect, and so it is understandable that there was no comment. However, I feel this will lead physicians to turn to the other guidelines for guidance where there is disagreement in other aspects.

Ultimately, the draft updated recommendation will provide physicians with the opportunity to identify more patients with prediabetes and DM. This will be wonderful in terms of being able to offer treatments and lifestyle interventions to decrease the morbidity patients would face were these conditions not diagnosed. I hope that future recommendations will also address risk factors in addition to BMI as well as frequency of screening for those who remain at increased risk but initially screen negative.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2021 Mar 16.

2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2020. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.2337/dc20-S002.

3. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

4. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology – clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan. Hadelsman Y et al. Endocr Pract. 2015 Apr. 1-87. doi: 10.4158/EP15672.GL.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

Necrobiosis lipoidica, or Necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum (NLD), is an uncommon dermatologic condition that presents as plaques on the skin. Women are often more affected than men. Patients often present in their 30s and 40s. The cause of NLD is unknown. Twenty percent of patients with NLD will have glucose intolerance or a family history of diabetes.¹ The percentage of patients with NLD who have diabetes varies in reports from 11% to 65%.² NLD may progress despite the diabetes treatment. Only 0.03% of patient with diabetes will have NLD.³

Lesions most commonly occur on the extremities, with shins being affected in most cases. They vary from asymptomatic to painful. Typically, lesions begin as small, firm erythematous papules that evolve into shiny, well-defined plaques. In older plaques, the center will often appear yellow, depressed, and atrophic, with telangiectasias. The periphery appears pink to violaceous to brown. Ulceration may be present, particularly after trauma, and there may be decreased sensation in the plaques. NLD is clinically distinct from diabetic dermopathy, which appear as brown macules, often in older patients with diabetes.

Ideally, biopsy should be taken at the edge of a lesion. Histologically, the epidermis appears normal or atrophic. A diffuse palisaded and interstitial granulomatous dermatitis consisting of histiocytes, multinucleated giant cells, lymphocytes, and plasma cells is seen in the dermis. Granulomas are often oriented parallel to the epidermis. There is no mucin at the center of the granulomas (as seen in granuloma annulare). Inflammation may extend into the subcutaneous fat. Asteroid bodies (as seen in sarcoid) are absent.

Unfortunately, treatment of NLD is often unsuccessful. Treatment includes potent topical corticosteroids for early lesions and intralesional triamcinolone to the leading edge of lesions. Care should be taken to avoid injecting centrally where atrophy and ulceration may result. Systemic steroids may be helpful in some cases, but can elevate glucose levels. Other reported medical treatments include pentoxifylline, cyclosporine, and niacinamide. Some lesions may spontaneously resolve. Ulcerations may require surgical excision with grafting.

This case and photo are provided by Dr. Bilu Martin, who is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. James WD et al. Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier, 2006.

2. Hashemi D et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Apr 1;155(4):455-9.

3. Bolognia JL et al. Dermatology. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby Elsevier, 2008.

Necrobiosis lipoidica, or Necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum (NLD), is an uncommon dermatologic condition that presents as plaques on the skin. Women are often more affected than men. Patients often present in their 30s and 40s. The cause of NLD is unknown. Twenty percent of patients with NLD will have glucose intolerance or a family history of diabetes.¹ The percentage of patients with NLD who have diabetes varies in reports from 11% to 65%.² NLD may progress despite the diabetes treatment. Only 0.03% of patient with diabetes will have NLD.³

Lesions most commonly occur on the extremities, with shins being affected in most cases. They vary from asymptomatic to painful. Typically, lesions begin as small, firm erythematous papules that evolve into shiny, well-defined plaques. In older plaques, the center will often appear yellow, depressed, and atrophic, with telangiectasias. The periphery appears pink to violaceous to brown. Ulceration may be present, particularly after trauma, and there may be decreased sensation in the plaques. NLD is clinically distinct from diabetic dermopathy, which appear as brown macules, often in older patients with diabetes.

Ideally, biopsy should be taken at the edge of a lesion. Histologically, the epidermis appears normal or atrophic. A diffuse palisaded and interstitial granulomatous dermatitis consisting of histiocytes, multinucleated giant cells, lymphocytes, and plasma cells is seen in the dermis. Granulomas are often oriented parallel to the epidermis. There is no mucin at the center of the granulomas (as seen in granuloma annulare). Inflammation may extend into the subcutaneous fat. Asteroid bodies (as seen in sarcoid) are absent.

Unfortunately, treatment of NLD is often unsuccessful. Treatment includes potent topical corticosteroids for early lesions and intralesional triamcinolone to the leading edge of lesions. Care should be taken to avoid injecting centrally where atrophy and ulceration may result. Systemic steroids may be helpful in some cases, but can elevate glucose levels. Other reported medical treatments include pentoxifylline, cyclosporine, and niacinamide. Some lesions may spontaneously resolve. Ulcerations may require surgical excision with grafting.

This case and photo are provided by Dr. Bilu Martin, who is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. James WD et al. Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier, 2006.

2. Hashemi D et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Apr 1;155(4):455-9.

3. Bolognia JL et al. Dermatology. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby Elsevier, 2008.

Necrobiosis lipoidica, or Necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum (NLD), is an uncommon dermatologic condition that presents as plaques on the skin. Women are often more affected than men. Patients often present in their 30s and 40s. The cause of NLD is unknown. Twenty percent of patients with NLD will have glucose intolerance or a family history of diabetes.¹ The percentage of patients with NLD who have diabetes varies in reports from 11% to 65%.² NLD may progress despite the diabetes treatment. Only 0.03% of patient with diabetes will have NLD.³

Lesions most commonly occur on the extremities, with shins being affected in most cases. They vary from asymptomatic to painful. Typically, lesions begin as small, firm erythematous papules that evolve into shiny, well-defined plaques. In older plaques, the center will often appear yellow, depressed, and atrophic, with telangiectasias. The periphery appears pink to violaceous to brown. Ulceration may be present, particularly after trauma, and there may be decreased sensation in the plaques. NLD is clinically distinct from diabetic dermopathy, which appear as brown macules, often in older patients with diabetes.

Ideally, biopsy should be taken at the edge of a lesion. Histologically, the epidermis appears normal or atrophic. A diffuse palisaded and interstitial granulomatous dermatitis consisting of histiocytes, multinucleated giant cells, lymphocytes, and plasma cells is seen in the dermis. Granulomas are often oriented parallel to the epidermis. There is no mucin at the center of the granulomas (as seen in granuloma annulare). Inflammation may extend into the subcutaneous fat. Asteroid bodies (as seen in sarcoid) are absent.

Unfortunately, treatment of NLD is often unsuccessful. Treatment includes potent topical corticosteroids for early lesions and intralesional triamcinolone to the leading edge of lesions. Care should be taken to avoid injecting centrally where atrophy and ulceration may result. Systemic steroids may be helpful in some cases, but can elevate glucose levels. Other reported medical treatments include pentoxifylline, cyclosporine, and niacinamide. Some lesions may spontaneously resolve. Ulcerations may require surgical excision with grafting.

This case and photo are provided by Dr. Bilu Martin, who is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. James WD et al. Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier, 2006.

2. Hashemi D et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Apr 1;155(4):455-9.

3. Bolognia JL et al. Dermatology. St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby Elsevier, 2008.

Veterans have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when compared with their civilian counterparts with an overall prevalence rate of 25%.¹ This higher prevalence is similar to other major chronic health conditions, including heart disease and arthritis, with additional costs for disease self-management.² Psychological and behavioral change strategies are a principal means of limiting the severity and even restoring function once T2DM is diagnosed.³ More broadly, there is mounting evidence that addressing distress and behavior change are important across many conditions, particularly T2DM.⁴ Therefore, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established patient education and multidisciplinary interventions to optimize engagement in T2DM self-management and health behavior change.⁵

Traditional T2DM education programs aim to meet the American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of medical care and include a T2DM educator and other allied health professionals. ADA Standard 1.2 emphasizes “productive interactions between a prepared, proactive care team and an informed, activated patient.”⁶ Thus, to attain ADA accreditation, educational programs require instructors to teach about T2DM while engaging patients to help them set and achieve recommended changes. The requirements emphasize setting specific goals, (ie, eating wisely, being physically active, monitoring blood sugars or taking medications). The care team also helps to identify barriers, and at a required follow-up class, patients evaluate how well they met goals and make modifications if needed. The impact of traditional patient education programs to improve glycemic levels is well established.⁷ Importantly, veterans with comorbid mental health conditions may not experience the same beneficial outcomes if or when they participate in traditional diabetes or self-management programs.^8,9 Veterans with T2DM may be particularly vulnerable to chronic stress and effects of comorbid mental health diagnoses.¹⁰ Furthermore, when individuals experience T2DM-related distress, associations with poor health outcomes, including elevated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), are observed independent of depression.¹¹

Health psychology services integrate into medical settings and strive to reach veterans who may not engage in traditional mental health clinical offerings.¹² These collaborative interventions focus less on diagnostic or screening procedures and more on a patient’s understanding of illness and ability and willingness to carry out treatment regimens. Given the significant roles of distress and co-occurring conditions, health psychology services further aim to provide psychoeducation about stress management in order to explore and enhance motivation for making a wide range of health behavior changes.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate baseline and follow-up HbA_1c, weight, and psychosocial measures, namely, health-related self-efficacy and T2DM-related distress among a small sample that engaged in integrated health psychology services. The focus of this evidence-based psychotherapy service was to improve T2DM self-care and physical health. The participants were offered cognitive and behavioral strategies for setting and meeting personalized T2DM self-management goals. Importantly, motivational interviewing was used throughout to adapt to the participants’ preferences and needs as well as to maintain engagement.

Methods

Primary care providers referred veterans with T2DM to the Health Psychology service at VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS). A T2DM diagnosis was verified through electronic health record review. Most common referrals included addressing coping with chronic illness and improving glycemic levels. Veterans were invited to participate in a program evaluation project to monitor health-related changes. All participants provided written informed consent and did not receive incentive or payment for participating. The VAAAHS Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.

Intervention

Veterans met individually with a health psychologist or health psychology trainee to create personalized health and behavioral goals for improving T2DM self-management, overall health, and psychological well-being. This intervention included motivational interviewing, SMART (specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic, timely) goal setting, behavioral activation, acceptance of T2DM-related physical changes, problem-solving therapy, challenging maladaptive disease-related cognitions, and incorporating values to help find motivation for change. Interventionists took a flexible approach and met in-person in primary or specialty care clinics, over the phone, and through telehealth 1 to 4 times a month, meeting participant preferences, with sessions typically ranging from 45 to 60 minutes. The goal of the study was to disseminate and implement evidence-based behavioral change strategies into a multidisciplinary team format without excluding veterans who would benefit from receiving active treatment. Due to this translational approach, a control group was not included for comparison.

Data Collection

Participants completed study measures at the beginning and end of the T2DM-focused intervention sessions. Demographic variables collected included age, sex, race/ethnicity, highest educational attainment, and whether a veteran was prescribed insulin, service connected for T2DM, concurrent enrollment in other educational programs, and time since T2DM diagnosis. Measures were selected based on their relevance to T2DM psychosocial care and diabetes health outcomes.¹³

Body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), HbA_1c within 3 months of the pre- and postmeasures were collected by reviewing medical records. T2DM complications were collected by self-report, and comorbid physical and mental health conditions were collected by review of the most recent primary care note. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF) is a well-validated measure that was used to measure T2DM-related psychosocial self-efficacy.¹⁴ Scores ranged from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating higher diabetes T2DM empowerment. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) was used to assess the frequency of somatic (fatigue, appetite, psychomotor) and cognitive symptoms (anhedonia, low mood) of depression over the past 2 weeks.¹⁵ The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) was used to assess the frequency of common anxiety symptoms, including feelings of worry, difficulty controlling worry, and trouble relaxing.¹⁶ Veterans were also asked to rate their general health on a 5-point Likert scale. Self-rated health is a well-established indicator of disability and risk of future T2DM complications in older adults.^17,18 The Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) was used to measure emotional burden, physician-related distress, regimen-related distress, and T2DM-related interpersonal distress.¹⁹ Scores > 2.0 suggest clinical significant diabetes distress.²⁰ Medication questionnaires were adapted from Wilson and colleagues, 2013.²¹

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation (SD) or frequency distributions, as appropriate, were used to characterize the sample. For pre- and postintervention within-group comparisons, a paired samples Student t test analysis was used to evaluate baseline and follow-up measures for statistically significant differences between continuous variables; scores also were evaluated for clinically meaningful change.

Results

This sample (N = 13) of older adults was predominately male, white, with HbA_1c > 7.0, and prescribed insulin (Table). On average, participants were at higher risk for future complications due to high BP, hyperlipidemia, and BMI > 30.0. Regarding participation, veterans were seen for an average of 7.8 sessions (range, 4-13) with 46% service connected for T2DM. Of note, 4 veterans received other T2DM-specific self-management support within the same year of their participation with health psychology, such as attending a T2DM education class or T2DM shared medical appointment.²² Reliability in the current sample for the DES-SF was high (Cronbach α = 0.90), PHQ-9 was good (Cronbach α = 0.81), and GAD-7 was very good (Cronbach α = 0.86).

Among the 13 older adults, the most common T2DM-related complications included peripheral neuropathy (n = 7), heart pain or heart attack (n = 5), and retinopathy (n = 4). Recent primary care notes showed a mean (SD) 7 (2.2) comorbid chronic medical conditions with a high prevalence of cardiometabolic illnesses including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and a diagnosis of chronic pain. Eleven veterans were diagnosed with a mental health condition, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, trauma-related disorder, and sleep disorders. Veterans reported high T2DM emotional distress (mean [SD] 3.1 [1.2]), moderate regimen-related distress (mean [SD] 2.9 [1.1]), and moderate total T2DM distress (mean [SD] 2.4 [0.7]). Physician distress (mean [SD] 1.3 [0.55]) and interpersonal T2DM distress (mean [SD] 1.6 [0.9]) subscales indicated little to no distress. The sample reported mild symptoms of depression (PHQ-9 mean [SD] 8.8 [4.6]); mild symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7 mean, 7.1; SD, 4.4), and Diabetes Empowerment (mean, 31.2; SD, 6.0). Participants described missing an average of 2.4 days within the past 30 days of their T2DM oral medications.

Twelve veterans (92.7%) completed the Follow-up questionnaires. The Figure illustrates statistically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes between baseline and follow-up. Clinically meaningful reductions were shown in total T2DM distress (t₁₁ = 5.03, P < .01), T2DM emotional burden (t₁₁ = 4.83, P = .01), and T2DM regimen-related distress (t₁₁ = 5.14, P < .01). There was a significant increase in T2DM self-efficacy (t₁₁ = 0.32, P = .008) as well. A statistically significant reduction was seen in depressive symptoms (t₁₁ = 2.22, P = .048). While HbA_1c fell by .56 percentage points (standard error of the mean [SEM], 31; P = .10), this change was not statistically significant. Follow-up analyses also showed a clinically, though not statistically, significant reduction in weight loss by 6.9 lb. (SEM, 3.8; P = .20), and reductions of generalized anxiety by 1.2 points (SEM, 1.4; P = .42). Pre- and postanalyses did not show differences among self-rated health, physician-related burden, interpersonal-related burden, and indicators of medication taking behavior.

Discussion

This observational study evaluated change among patient-reported T2DM-specific and general distress measures and health outcomes among a small sample of veterans at VAAAHS medical center that engaged in an episode of individual care with health psychology. Statistically significant decreases were observed in T2DM-related distress. Noteworthy, these decreases were observed for the emotional burden and regimen subscales, and each of these was clinically meaningful, falling below a score of 2.0 on the T2DM-specific scale. This is important given that T2DM distress may interfere with the ability to understand and find motivation for engaging in health behavior change. Incorporating stress management interventions into interdisciplinary health programs has been demonstrated to improve not only levels of distress, but also other health outcomes, such as health related quality of life and cardiac events in heart disease.²³ Thus, behavioral health interventions that incorporate cognitive-behavioral strategies to enhance distress-specific coping may prove important to include among individuals with T2DM.

Reductions in T2DM-related distress also converged with increases observed in the T2DM empowerment scale. These significant improvements in perceived ability suggest increased self-efficacy and willingness to follow a daily T2DM regimen. This finding aligns with the social support literature that demonstrates how instrumental and other aspects of autonomous social support mediate improvements in health-related outcomes and reduced T2DM distress.^24,25 Health psychology interventions strive to both provide social support as well as enhance participants’ perceptions and use of existing support as a cognitive-behavioral strategy. Adding in assessments of social support could shed light on such mediating factors.

The ADA standards of care encourage heath care providers to engage patients in conversations in order to better understand the barriers of T2DM self-care.¹³ How to best support patients within a primary care multidisciplinary team remains unclear.²⁶ T2DM distress and negative reactions to T2DM, including symptoms of anxiety and depression, are common and may require specific referral to a mental health provider if repeated attempts at T2DM education do not improve self-management and illness biomarkers.²⁷ Thus, integrating these providers and services within the medical setting aims to reach more veterans and potentially meet these standards of care. With our health psychology integrated services, clinically significant decreases in anxiety and statistically significant decreases in depressive symptoms were observed that approached “mild to no” symptoms. Although this was not measured formally, the veterans were not engaging in mental health specialty care historically or during the year of the health psychology intervention. This suggests that health psychology services helped bridge the gap and address these psychosocial needs within the small sample.

For clinical measures, modest decreases were observed for HbA_1c and weight. The authors recognize that these changes may not be optimal in terms of health status. A review of the specific patient-centered goals may illuminate this finding. For example, 1 participant had a goal to consume fewer sugary beverages and achieved this behavior change. Yet this change alone may not equate to actual weight loss or a lower HbA_1c. Furthermore, in the context of T2DM-related distress, maintaining current weight and/or blood sugar levels may be a more realistic goal. An evaluation of the specific patient-oriented action goals and observed progress may be important outcomes to include in larger studies. Moreover, while not significant, the average HbA_1c decrease of about 1% is comparable with traditional T2DM education and should be considered in light of the sample’s significant mental health comorbidities. While landmark intensive glucose control trials illustrate significant benefits in reductions of hyperglycemia and nonfatal cardiovascular disease, these reductions are associated with an approximate 2-fold risk of hypoglycemia.^28-30 Thus, the focus on improved glycemic control has been criticized as lacking meaning to patients in contrast to preventing T2DM complications and persevering quality of life.³¹

Limitations and Future Directions

Noted limitations include small sample size, the range of time, and a broad number of sessions given that the intervention was tailored to each veteran. Conclusions drawn from a small sample may be influenced by individual outliers. Given co-occurring conditions and moderate levels of distress, all participants may benefit from additional support resources.

In addition to these considerations, having a comparison group could further strengthen the study as part of an observational database. A between-group comparison could help clinicians better understand what the interventions offer as well as some individual factors that relate to participation and success with behavior change. In the future, studies with a priori hypotheses could also consider the trajectories of weight and blood sugar levels for extended periods; for example, 6 months before the intervention and 6 months following.³² Given the complexity of comorbid mental health and chronic medical conditions in this sample, it also may be important to measure the relationships between chronic physical symptoms as an additional barrier for veterans to make health behavior changes.

Conclusions

The authors believe that the health psychology interventions offered important support and motivation for engagement in health behavior change that led to reduced distress in this patient group. It remains a challenge to engage veterans with psychiatric conditions in mental health care, and simultaneously for health care systems that strive to reduce costs and complications associated with chronic illness management.³³ Aligned with these broader health care goals, the ADA aims to reduce complications and cost and improve outcomes for T2DM with guidelines requiring mental and behavioral health interventions. The authors believe that health psychology interventions are a personalized and feasible bridge to address engagement, illness-related distress while improving patient-satisfaction and T2DM self-management.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the veterans who participated in the observational study. We thank the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System Institutional Review Board. For instrumental support for health psychology integrated services, we acknowledge Adam Tremblay, MD, Primary Care Chief, and R.J. Schildhouse, MD, Acting Associate Chief of Staff, Ambulatory Care. The work was supported by the Ambulatory Care Service at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the VA Office of Academic Affiliations.

Veterans have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when compared with their civilian counterparts with an overall prevalence rate of 25%.¹ This higher prevalence is similar to other major chronic health conditions, including heart disease and arthritis, with additional costs for disease self-management.² Psychological and behavioral change strategies are a principal means of limiting the severity and even restoring function once T2DM is diagnosed.³ More broadly, there is mounting evidence that addressing distress and behavior change are important across many conditions, particularly T2DM.⁴ Therefore, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established patient education and multidisciplinary interventions to optimize engagement in T2DM self-management and health behavior change.⁵

Traditional T2DM education programs aim to meet the American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of medical care and include a T2DM educator and other allied health professionals. ADA Standard 1.2 emphasizes “productive interactions between a prepared, proactive care team and an informed, activated patient.”⁶ Thus, to attain ADA accreditation, educational programs require instructors to teach about T2DM while engaging patients to help them set and achieve recommended changes. The requirements emphasize setting specific goals, (ie, eating wisely, being physically active, monitoring blood sugars or taking medications). The care team also helps to identify barriers, and at a required follow-up class, patients evaluate how well they met goals and make modifications if needed. The impact of traditional patient education programs to improve glycemic levels is well established.⁷ Importantly, veterans with comorbid mental health conditions may not experience the same beneficial outcomes if or when they participate in traditional diabetes or self-management programs.^8,9 Veterans with T2DM may be particularly vulnerable to chronic stress and effects of comorbid mental health diagnoses.¹⁰ Furthermore, when individuals experience T2DM-related distress, associations with poor health outcomes, including elevated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), are observed independent of depression.¹¹

Health psychology services integrate into medical settings and strive to reach veterans who may not engage in traditional mental health clinical offerings.¹² These collaborative interventions focus less on diagnostic or screening procedures and more on a patient’s understanding of illness and ability and willingness to carry out treatment regimens. Given the significant roles of distress and co-occurring conditions, health psychology services further aim to provide psychoeducation about stress management in order to explore and enhance motivation for making a wide range of health behavior changes.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate baseline and follow-up HbA_1c, weight, and psychosocial measures, namely, health-related self-efficacy and T2DM-related distress among a small sample that engaged in integrated health psychology services. The focus of this evidence-based psychotherapy service was to improve T2DM self-care and physical health. The participants were offered cognitive and behavioral strategies for setting and meeting personalized T2DM self-management goals. Importantly, motivational interviewing was used throughout to adapt to the participants’ preferences and needs as well as to maintain engagement.

Methods

Primary care providers referred veterans with T2DM to the Health Psychology service at VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS). A T2DM diagnosis was verified through electronic health record review. Most common referrals included addressing coping with chronic illness and improving glycemic levels. Veterans were invited to participate in a program evaluation project to monitor health-related changes. All participants provided written informed consent and did not receive incentive or payment for participating. The VAAAHS Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.

Intervention

Veterans met individually with a health psychologist or health psychology trainee to create personalized health and behavioral goals for improving T2DM self-management, overall health, and psychological well-being. This intervention included motivational interviewing, SMART (specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic, timely) goal setting, behavioral activation, acceptance of T2DM-related physical changes, problem-solving therapy, challenging maladaptive disease-related cognitions, and incorporating values to help find motivation for change. Interventionists took a flexible approach and met in-person in primary or specialty care clinics, over the phone, and through telehealth 1 to 4 times a month, meeting participant preferences, with sessions typically ranging from 45 to 60 minutes. The goal of the study was to disseminate and implement evidence-based behavioral change strategies into a multidisciplinary team format without excluding veterans who would benefit from receiving active treatment. Due to this translational approach, a control group was not included for comparison.

Data Collection

Participants completed study measures at the beginning and end of the T2DM-focused intervention sessions. Demographic variables collected included age, sex, race/ethnicity, highest educational attainment, and whether a veteran was prescribed insulin, service connected for T2DM, concurrent enrollment in other educational programs, and time since T2DM diagnosis. Measures were selected based on their relevance to T2DM psychosocial care and diabetes health outcomes.¹³

Body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), HbA_1c within 3 months of the pre- and postmeasures were collected by reviewing medical records. T2DM complications were collected by self-report, and comorbid physical and mental health conditions were collected by review of the most recent primary care note. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF) is a well-validated measure that was used to measure T2DM-related psychosocial self-efficacy.¹⁴ Scores ranged from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating higher diabetes T2DM empowerment. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) was used to assess the frequency of somatic (fatigue, appetite, psychomotor) and cognitive symptoms (anhedonia, low mood) of depression over the past 2 weeks.¹⁵ The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) was used to assess the frequency of common anxiety symptoms, including feelings of worry, difficulty controlling worry, and trouble relaxing.¹⁶ Veterans were also asked to rate their general health on a 5-point Likert scale. Self-rated health is a well-established indicator of disability and risk of future T2DM complications in older adults.^17,18 The Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) was used to measure emotional burden, physician-related distress, regimen-related distress, and T2DM-related interpersonal distress.¹⁹ Scores > 2.0 suggest clinical significant diabetes distress.²⁰ Medication questionnaires were adapted from Wilson and colleagues, 2013.²¹

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation (SD) or frequency distributions, as appropriate, were used to characterize the sample. For pre- and postintervention within-group comparisons, a paired samples Student t test analysis was used to evaluate baseline and follow-up measures for statistically significant differences between continuous variables; scores also were evaluated for clinically meaningful change.

Results

This sample (N = 13) of older adults was predominately male, white, with HbA_1c > 7.0, and prescribed insulin (Table). On average, participants were at higher risk for future complications due to high BP, hyperlipidemia, and BMI > 30.0. Regarding participation, veterans were seen for an average of 7.8 sessions (range, 4-13) with 46% service connected for T2DM. Of note, 4 veterans received other T2DM-specific self-management support within the same year of their participation with health psychology, such as attending a T2DM education class or T2DM shared medical appointment.²² Reliability in the current sample for the DES-SF was high (Cronbach α = 0.90), PHQ-9 was good (Cronbach α = 0.81), and GAD-7 was very good (Cronbach α = 0.86).

Among the 13 older adults, the most common T2DM-related complications included peripheral neuropathy (n = 7), heart pain or heart attack (n = 5), and retinopathy (n = 4). Recent primary care notes showed a mean (SD) 7 (2.2) comorbid chronic medical conditions with a high prevalence of cardiometabolic illnesses including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and a diagnosis of chronic pain. Eleven veterans were diagnosed with a mental health condition, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, trauma-related disorder, and sleep disorders. Veterans reported high T2DM emotional distress (mean [SD] 3.1 [1.2]), moderate regimen-related distress (mean [SD] 2.9 [1.1]), and moderate total T2DM distress (mean [SD] 2.4 [0.7]). Physician distress (mean [SD] 1.3 [0.55]) and interpersonal T2DM distress (mean [SD] 1.6 [0.9]) subscales indicated little to no distress. The sample reported mild symptoms of depression (PHQ-9 mean [SD] 8.8 [4.6]); mild symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7 mean, 7.1; SD, 4.4), and Diabetes Empowerment (mean, 31.2; SD, 6.0). Participants described missing an average of 2.4 days within the past 30 days of their T2DM oral medications.

Twelve veterans (92.7%) completed the Follow-up questionnaires. The Figure illustrates statistically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes between baseline and follow-up. Clinically meaningful reductions were shown in total T2DM distress (t₁₁ = 5.03, P < .01), T2DM emotional burden (t₁₁ = 4.83, P = .01), and T2DM regimen-related distress (t₁₁ = 5.14, P < .01). There was a significant increase in T2DM self-efficacy (t₁₁ = 0.32, P = .008) as well. A statistically significant reduction was seen in depressive symptoms (t₁₁ = 2.22, P = .048). While HbA_1c fell by .56 percentage points (standard error of the mean [SEM], 31; P = .10), this change was not statistically significant. Follow-up analyses also showed a clinically, though not statistically, significant reduction in weight loss by 6.9 lb. (SEM, 3.8; P = .20), and reductions of generalized anxiety by 1.2 points (SEM, 1.4; P = .42). Pre- and postanalyses did not show differences among self-rated health, physician-related burden, interpersonal-related burden, and indicators of medication taking behavior.

Discussion

This observational study evaluated change among patient-reported T2DM-specific and general distress measures and health outcomes among a small sample of veterans at VAAAHS medical center that engaged in an episode of individual care with health psychology. Statistically significant decreases were observed in T2DM-related distress. Noteworthy, these decreases were observed for the emotional burden and regimen subscales, and each of these was clinically meaningful, falling below a score of 2.0 on the T2DM-specific scale. This is important given that T2DM distress may interfere with the ability to understand and find motivation for engaging in health behavior change. Incorporating stress management interventions into interdisciplinary health programs has been demonstrated to improve not only levels of distress, but also other health outcomes, such as health related quality of life and cardiac events in heart disease.²³ Thus, behavioral health interventions that incorporate cognitive-behavioral strategies to enhance distress-specific coping may prove important to include among individuals with T2DM.

Reductions in T2DM-related distress also converged with increases observed in the T2DM empowerment scale. These significant improvements in perceived ability suggest increased self-efficacy and willingness to follow a daily T2DM regimen. This finding aligns with the social support literature that demonstrates how instrumental and other aspects of autonomous social support mediate improvements in health-related outcomes and reduced T2DM distress.^24,25 Health psychology interventions strive to both provide social support as well as enhance participants’ perceptions and use of existing support as a cognitive-behavioral strategy. Adding in assessments of social support could shed light on such mediating factors.

The ADA standards of care encourage heath care providers to engage patients in conversations in order to better understand the barriers of T2DM self-care.¹³ How to best support patients within a primary care multidisciplinary team remains unclear.²⁶ T2DM distress and negative reactions to T2DM, including symptoms of anxiety and depression, are common and may require specific referral to a mental health provider if repeated attempts at T2DM education do not improve self-management and illness biomarkers.²⁷ Thus, integrating these providers and services within the medical setting aims to reach more veterans and potentially meet these standards of care. With our health psychology integrated services, clinically significant decreases in anxiety and statistically significant decreases in depressive symptoms were observed that approached “mild to no” symptoms. Although this was not measured formally, the veterans were not engaging in mental health specialty care historically or during the year of the health psychology intervention. This suggests that health psychology services helped bridge the gap and address these psychosocial needs within the small sample.

For clinical measures, modest decreases were observed for HbA_1c and weight. The authors recognize that these changes may not be optimal in terms of health status. A review of the specific patient-centered goals may illuminate this finding. For example, 1 participant had a goal to consume fewer sugary beverages and achieved this behavior change. Yet this change alone may not equate to actual weight loss or a lower HbA_1c. Furthermore, in the context of T2DM-related distress, maintaining current weight and/or blood sugar levels may be a more realistic goal. An evaluation of the specific patient-oriented action goals and observed progress may be important outcomes to include in larger studies. Moreover, while not significant, the average HbA_1c decrease of about 1% is comparable with traditional T2DM education and should be considered in light of the sample’s significant mental health comorbidities. While landmark intensive glucose control trials illustrate significant benefits in reductions of hyperglycemia and nonfatal cardiovascular disease, these reductions are associated with an approximate 2-fold risk of hypoglycemia.^28-30 Thus, the focus on improved glycemic control has been criticized as lacking meaning to patients in contrast to preventing T2DM complications and persevering quality of life.³¹

Limitations and Future Directions

Noted limitations include small sample size, the range of time, and a broad number of sessions given that the intervention was tailored to each veteran. Conclusions drawn from a small sample may be influenced by individual outliers. Given co-occurring conditions and moderate levels of distress, all participants may benefit from additional support resources.

In addition to these considerations, having a comparison group could further strengthen the study as part of an observational database. A between-group comparison could help clinicians better understand what the interventions offer as well as some individual factors that relate to participation and success with behavior change. In the future, studies with a priori hypotheses could also consider the trajectories of weight and blood sugar levels for extended periods; for example, 6 months before the intervention and 6 months following.³² Given the complexity of comorbid mental health and chronic medical conditions in this sample, it also may be important to measure the relationships between chronic physical symptoms as an additional barrier for veterans to make health behavior changes.

Conclusions

The authors believe that the health psychology interventions offered important support and motivation for engagement in health behavior change that led to reduced distress in this patient group. It remains a challenge to engage veterans with psychiatric conditions in mental health care, and simultaneously for health care systems that strive to reduce costs and complications associated with chronic illness management.³³ Aligned with these broader health care goals, the ADA aims to reduce complications and cost and improve outcomes for T2DM with guidelines requiring mental and behavioral health interventions. The authors believe that health psychology interventions are a personalized and feasible bridge to address engagement, illness-related distress while improving patient-satisfaction and T2DM self-management.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the veterans who participated in the observational study. We thank the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System Institutional Review Board. For instrumental support for health psychology integrated services, we acknowledge Adam Tremblay, MD, Primary Care Chief, and R.J. Schildhouse, MD, Acting Associate Chief of Staff, Ambulatory Care. The work was supported by the Ambulatory Care Service at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the VA Office of Academic Affiliations.

Veterans have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when compared with their civilian counterparts with an overall prevalence rate of 25%.¹ This higher prevalence is similar to other major chronic health conditions, including heart disease and arthritis, with additional costs for disease self-management.² Psychological and behavioral change strategies are a principal means of limiting the severity and even restoring function once T2DM is diagnosed.³ More broadly, there is mounting evidence that addressing distress and behavior change are important across many conditions, particularly T2DM.⁴ Therefore, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established patient education and multidisciplinary interventions to optimize engagement in T2DM self-management and health behavior change.⁵

Traditional T2DM education programs aim to meet the American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of medical care and include a T2DM educator and other allied health professionals. ADA Standard 1.2 emphasizes “productive interactions between a prepared, proactive care team and an informed, activated patient.”⁶ Thus, to attain ADA accreditation, educational programs require instructors to teach about T2DM while engaging patients to help them set and achieve recommended changes. The requirements emphasize setting specific goals, (ie, eating wisely, being physically active, monitoring blood sugars or taking medications). The care team also helps to identify barriers, and at a required follow-up class, patients evaluate how well they met goals and make modifications if needed. The impact of traditional patient education programs to improve glycemic levels is well established.⁷ Importantly, veterans with comorbid mental health conditions may not experience the same beneficial outcomes if or when they participate in traditional diabetes or self-management programs.^8,9 Veterans with T2DM may be particularly vulnerable to chronic stress and effects of comorbid mental health diagnoses.¹⁰ Furthermore, when individuals experience T2DM-related distress, associations with poor health outcomes, including elevated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), are observed independent of depression.¹¹

Health psychology services integrate into medical settings and strive to reach veterans who may not engage in traditional mental health clinical offerings.¹² These collaborative interventions focus less on diagnostic or screening procedures and more on a patient’s understanding of illness and ability and willingness to carry out treatment regimens. Given the significant roles of distress and co-occurring conditions, health psychology services further aim to provide psychoeducation about stress management in order to explore and enhance motivation for making a wide range of health behavior changes.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate baseline and follow-up HbA_1c, weight, and psychosocial measures, namely, health-related self-efficacy and T2DM-related distress among a small sample that engaged in integrated health psychology services. The focus of this evidence-based psychotherapy service was to improve T2DM self-care and physical health. The participants were offered cognitive and behavioral strategies for setting and meeting personalized T2DM self-management goals. Importantly, motivational interviewing was used throughout to adapt to the participants’ preferences and needs as well as to maintain engagement.

Methods

Primary care providers referred veterans with T2DM to the Health Psychology service at VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS). A T2DM diagnosis was verified through electronic health record review. Most common referrals included addressing coping with chronic illness and improving glycemic levels. Veterans were invited to participate in a program evaluation project to monitor health-related changes. All participants provided written informed consent and did not receive incentive or payment for participating. The VAAAHS Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.

Intervention

Veterans met individually with a health psychologist or health psychology trainee to create personalized health and behavioral goals for improving T2DM self-management, overall health, and psychological well-being. This intervention included motivational interviewing, SMART (specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic, timely) goal setting, behavioral activation, acceptance of T2DM-related physical changes, problem-solving therapy, challenging maladaptive disease-related cognitions, and incorporating values to help find motivation for change. Interventionists took a flexible approach and met in-person in primary or specialty care clinics, over the phone, and through telehealth 1 to 4 times a month, meeting participant preferences, with sessions typically ranging from 45 to 60 minutes. The goal of the study was to disseminate and implement evidence-based behavioral change strategies into a multidisciplinary team format without excluding veterans who would benefit from receiving active treatment. Due to this translational approach, a control group was not included for comparison.

Data Collection

Participants completed study measures at the beginning and end of the T2DM-focused intervention sessions. Demographic variables collected included age, sex, race/ethnicity, highest educational attainment, and whether a veteran was prescribed insulin, service connected for T2DM, concurrent enrollment in other educational programs, and time since T2DM diagnosis. Measures were selected based on their relevance to T2DM psychosocial care and diabetes health outcomes.¹³

Body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), HbA_1c within 3 months of the pre- and postmeasures were collected by reviewing medical records. T2DM complications were collected by self-report, and comorbid physical and mental health conditions were collected by review of the most recent primary care note. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF) is a well-validated measure that was used to measure T2DM-related psychosocial self-efficacy.¹⁴ Scores ranged from 8 to 40 with higher scores indicating higher diabetes T2DM empowerment. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) was used to assess the frequency of somatic (fatigue, appetite, psychomotor) and cognitive symptoms (anhedonia, low mood) of depression over the past 2 weeks.¹⁵ The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) was used to assess the frequency of common anxiety symptoms, including feelings of worry, difficulty controlling worry, and trouble relaxing.¹⁶ Veterans were also asked to rate their general health on a 5-point Likert scale. Self-rated health is a well-established indicator of disability and risk of future T2DM complications in older adults.^17,18 The Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) was used to measure emotional burden, physician-related distress, regimen-related distress, and T2DM-related interpersonal distress.¹⁹ Scores > 2.0 suggest clinical significant diabetes distress.²⁰ Medication questionnaires were adapted from Wilson and colleagues, 2013.²¹

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation (SD) or frequency distributions, as appropriate, were used to characterize the sample. For pre- and postintervention within-group comparisons, a paired samples Student t test analysis was used to evaluate baseline and follow-up measures for statistically significant differences between continuous variables; scores also were evaluated for clinically meaningful change.

Results

This sample (N = 13) of older adults was predominately male, white, with HbA_1c > 7.0, and prescribed insulin (Table). On average, participants were at higher risk for future complications due to high BP, hyperlipidemia, and BMI > 30.0. Regarding participation, veterans were seen for an average of 7.8 sessions (range, 4-13) with 46% service connected for T2DM. Of note, 4 veterans received other T2DM-specific self-management support within the same year of their participation with health psychology, such as attending a T2DM education class or T2DM shared medical appointment.²² Reliability in the current sample for the DES-SF was high (Cronbach α = 0.90), PHQ-9 was good (Cronbach α = 0.81), and GAD-7 was very good (Cronbach α = 0.86).

Among the 13 older adults, the most common T2DM-related complications included peripheral neuropathy (n = 7), heart pain or heart attack (n = 5), and retinopathy (n = 4). Recent primary care notes showed a mean (SD) 7 (2.2) comorbid chronic medical conditions with a high prevalence of cardiometabolic illnesses including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and a diagnosis of chronic pain. Eleven veterans were diagnosed with a mental health condition, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, trauma-related disorder, and sleep disorders. Veterans reported high T2DM emotional distress (mean [SD] 3.1 [1.2]), moderate regimen-related distress (mean [SD] 2.9 [1.1]), and moderate total T2DM distress (mean [SD] 2.4 [0.7]). Physician distress (mean [SD] 1.3 [0.55]) and interpersonal T2DM distress (mean [SD] 1.6 [0.9]) subscales indicated little to no distress. The sample reported mild symptoms of depression (PHQ-9 mean [SD] 8.8 [4.6]); mild symptoms of anxiety (GAD-7 mean, 7.1; SD, 4.4), and Diabetes Empowerment (mean, 31.2; SD, 6.0). Participants described missing an average of 2.4 days within the past 30 days of their T2DM oral medications.

Twelve veterans (92.7%) completed the Follow-up questionnaires. The Figure illustrates statistically significant changes in patient-reported outcomes between baseline and follow-up. Clinically meaningful reductions were shown in total T2DM distress (t₁₁ = 5.03, P < .01), T2DM emotional burden (t₁₁ = 4.83, P = .01), and T2DM regimen-related distress (t₁₁ = 5.14, P < .01). There was a significant increase in T2DM self-efficacy (t₁₁ = 0.32, P = .008) as well. A statistically significant reduction was seen in depressive symptoms (t₁₁ = 2.22, P = .048). While HbA_1c fell by .56 percentage points (standard error of the mean [SEM], 31; P = .10), this change was not statistically significant. Follow-up analyses also showed a clinically, though not statistically, significant reduction in weight loss by 6.9 lb. (SEM, 3.8; P = .20), and reductions of generalized anxiety by 1.2 points (SEM, 1.4; P = .42). Pre- and postanalyses did not show differences among self-rated health, physician-related burden, interpersonal-related burden, and indicators of medication taking behavior.

Discussion

This observational study evaluated change among patient-reported T2DM-specific and general distress measures and health outcomes among a small sample of veterans at VAAAHS medical center that engaged in an episode of individual care with health psychology. Statistically significant decreases were observed in T2DM-related distress. Noteworthy, these decreases were observed for the emotional burden and regimen subscales, and each of these was clinically meaningful, falling below a score of 2.0 on the T2DM-specific scale. This is important given that T2DM distress may interfere with the ability to understand and find motivation for engaging in health behavior change. Incorporating stress management interventions into interdisciplinary health programs has been demonstrated to improve not only levels of distress, but also other health outcomes, such as health related quality of life and cardiac events in heart disease.²³ Thus, behavioral health interventions that incorporate cognitive-behavioral strategies to enhance distress-specific coping may prove important to include among individuals with T2DM.

Reductions in T2DM-related distress also converged with increases observed in the T2DM empowerment scale. These significant improvements in perceived ability suggest increased self-efficacy and willingness to follow a daily T2DM regimen. This finding aligns with the social support literature that demonstrates how instrumental and other aspects of autonomous social support mediate improvements in health-related outcomes and reduced T2DM distress.^24,25 Health psychology interventions strive to both provide social support as well as enhance participants’ perceptions and use of existing support as a cognitive-behavioral strategy. Adding in assessments of social support could shed light on such mediating factors.

The ADA standards of care encourage heath care providers to engage patients in conversations in order to better understand the barriers of T2DM self-care.¹³ How to best support patients within a primary care multidisciplinary team remains unclear.²⁶ T2DM distress and negative reactions to T2DM, including symptoms of anxiety and depression, are common and may require specific referral to a mental health provider if repeated attempts at T2DM education do not improve self-management and illness biomarkers.²⁷ Thus, integrating these providers and services within the medical setting aims to reach more veterans and potentially meet these standards of care. With our health psychology integrated services, clinically significant decreases in anxiety and statistically significant decreases in depressive symptoms were observed that approached “mild to no” symptoms. Although this was not measured formally, the veterans were not engaging in mental health specialty care historically or during the year of the health psychology intervention. This suggests that health psychology services helped bridge the gap and address these psychosocial needs within the small sample.

For clinical measures, modest decreases were observed for HbA_1c and weight. The authors recognize that these changes may not be optimal in terms of health status. A review of the specific patient-centered goals may illuminate this finding. For example, 1 participant had a goal to consume fewer sugary beverages and achieved this behavior change. Yet this change alone may not equate to actual weight loss or a lower HbA_1c. Furthermore, in the context of T2DM-related distress, maintaining current weight and/or blood sugar levels may be a more realistic goal. An evaluation of the specific patient-oriented action goals and observed progress may be important outcomes to include in larger studies. Moreover, while not significant, the average HbA_1c decrease of about 1% is comparable with traditional T2DM education and should be considered in light of the sample’s significant mental health comorbidities. While landmark intensive glucose control trials illustrate significant benefits in reductions of hyperglycemia and nonfatal cardiovascular disease, these reductions are associated with an approximate 2-fold risk of hypoglycemia.^28-30 Thus, the focus on improved glycemic control has been criticized as lacking meaning to patients in contrast to preventing T2DM complications and persevering quality of life.³¹

Limitations and Future Directions

Noted limitations include small sample size, the range of time, and a broad number of sessions given that the intervention was tailored to each veteran. Conclusions drawn from a small sample may be influenced by individual outliers. Given co-occurring conditions and moderate levels of distress, all participants may benefit from additional support resources.

In addition to these considerations, having a comparison group could further strengthen the study as part of an observational database. A between-group comparison could help clinicians better understand what the interventions offer as well as some individual factors that relate to participation and success with behavior change. In the future, studies with a priori hypotheses could also consider the trajectories of weight and blood sugar levels for extended periods; for example, 6 months before the intervention and 6 months following.³² Given the complexity of comorbid mental health and chronic medical conditions in this sample, it also may be important to measure the relationships between chronic physical symptoms as an additional barrier for veterans to make health behavior changes.

Conclusions

The authors believe that the health psychology interventions offered important support and motivation for engagement in health behavior change that led to reduced distress in this patient group. It remains a challenge to engage veterans with psychiatric conditions in mental health care, and simultaneously for health care systems that strive to reduce costs and complications associated with chronic illness management.³³ Aligned with these broader health care goals, the ADA aims to reduce complications and cost and improve outcomes for T2DM with guidelines requiring mental and behavioral health interventions. The authors believe that health psychology interventions are a personalized and feasible bridge to address engagement, illness-related distress while improving patient-satisfaction and T2DM self-management.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the veterans who participated in the observational study. We thank the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System Institutional Review Board. For instrumental support for health psychology integrated services, we acknowledge Adam Tremblay, MD, Primary Care Chief, and R.J. Schildhouse, MD, Acting Associate Chief of Staff, Ambulatory Care. The work was supported by the Ambulatory Care Service at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the VA Office of Academic Affiliations.