Diabetes

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two newly published studies highlight recent success toward delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people at high risk and slowing progression in those with recent onset of the condition.

Both studies were initially presented in June 2020 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and reported by this news organization at the time.  

As yet, neither of the two strategies – preserving insulin-producing pancreatic beta-cell function soon after diagnosis or delaying type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk – represent a cure or certain disease prevention.

However, both can potentially lead to better long-term glycemic control with less hypoglycemia and a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.
 

Combination treatment prolongs beta-cell function in new-onset disease

The first study, entitled, “Anti–interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of beta-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes,” was published online March 1, 2021, in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Matthias von Herrath, MD, of Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark, and colleagues.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 combination treatment trial involved 308 individuals aged 18-45 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the previous 20 weeks and still had residual beta-cell function.

Patients were randomized with 77 per group to receive monoclonal anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo. The antibody was given intravenously every 6 weeks and liraglutide or matching placebo were self-administered by daily injections.

Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline, 0.61; 39% decrease), the decrease in mixed meal tolerance test stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 – the primary outcome – was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0.90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio, 1.48; P = .0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1.23; P = .093) or liraglutide alone (1.12; P = .38).

Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in hemoglobin A1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (–0.50 percentage points) than with placebo (–0.10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant.

“The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes,” the researchers said.

“These results suggest that this combination has the potential to offer a novel and valuable disease-modifying therapy for patients with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. However, the efficacy and safety need to be further investigated in a phase 3 program,” Dr. von Herrath and colleagues concluded.
 

Teplizumab: 3-year data continue to show benefit

The other study looked at delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes. Entitled, “Teplizumab improves and stabilizes beta cell function in antibody-positive high-risk individuals,” the article was published online March 3, 2021, in Science Translational Medicine by Emily K. Sims, MD, of the department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

This trial of the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody adds an additional year of follow-up to the “game-changer” 2-year data reported in 2019.

Among the 76 individuals aged 8-49 years who were positive for two or more type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies, 50% of those randomized to a single 14-day infusion course of teplizumab remained diabetes free at a median follow-up of 923 days, compared with only 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01).

The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve, compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).

“It is very encouraging to see that a single course of teplizumab delayed insulin dependence in this high-risk population for approximately 3 years versus placebo,” said Frank Martin, PhD, JDRF director of research at Provention Bio, which is developing teplizumab.

“These exciting results have been made possible by the unwavering efforts of TrialNet and Provention Bio. Teplizumab, if approved by the FDA, could positively change the course of disease development for people at risk of developing T1D and their standard of care,” he concluded.

The teplizumab study was funded by TrialNet. Dr. von Herrath is an employee of Novo Nordisk, which funded the study involving its drug liraglutide. Dr. Sims reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



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

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



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

In January, as Mississippi health officials planned for their incoming shipments of COVID-19 vaccine, they assessed the state’s most vulnerable: health care workers, of course, and elderly people in nursing homes. But among those who needed urgent protection from the virus ripping across the Magnolia State were 1 million Mississippians with obesity.

Obesity and weight-related illnesses have been deadly liabilities in the COVID era. A report released this month by the World Obesity Federation found that increased body weight is the second-greatest predictor of COVID-related hospitalization and death across the globe, trailing only old age as a risk factor.

As a fixture of life in the American South – home to 9 of the nation’s 12 heaviest states – obesity is playing a role not only in COVID outcomes, but in the calculus of the vaccination rollout. Mississippi was one of the first states to add a body mass index of 30 or more (a rough gauge of obesity tied to height and weight) to the list of qualifying medical conditions for a shot. About 40% of the state’s adults meet that definition, according to federal health survey data, and combined with the risk group already eligible for vaccination – residents 65 and older – that means fully half of Mississippi’s adults are entitled to vie for a restricted allotment of shots.

At least 29 states have green-lighted obesity for inclusion in the first phases of the vaccine rollout, according to KFF – a vast widening of eligibility that has the potential to overwhelm government efforts and heighten competition for scarce doses.

“We have a lifesaving intervention, and we don’t have enough of it,” said Jen Kates, PhD, director of global health and HIV policy for Kaiser Family Foundation. “Hard choices are being made about who should go first, and there is no right answer.”

The sheer prevalence of obesity in the nation – two in three Americans exceed what is considered a healthy weight – was a public health concern well before the pandemic. But COVID-19 dramatically fast-tracked the discussion from warnings about the long-term damage excess fat tissue can pose to heart, lung and metabolic functions to far more immediate threats.

In the United Kingdom, for example, overweight COVID patients were 67% more likely to require intensive care, and obese patients three times likelier, according to the World Obesity Federation report. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released Monday found a similar trend among U.S. patients and noted that the risk of COVID-related hospitalization, ventilation and death increased with patients’ obesity level.

The counties that hug the southern Mississippi River are home to some of the most concentrated pockets of extreme obesity in the United States. Coronavirus infections began surging in Southern states early last summer, and hospitalizations rose in step.

Deaths in rural stretches of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have been overshadowed by the sheer number of deaths in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, and Essex County, N.J. But as a share of the population, the coronavirus has been similarly unsparing in many Southern communities. In sparsely populated Claiborne County, Miss., on the floodplains of the Mississippi River, 30 residents – about 1 in 300 – had died as of early March. In East Feliciana Parish, La., north of Baton Rouge, with 106 deaths, about 1 in 180 had died by then.

“It’s just math. If the population is more obese and obesity clearly contributes to worse outcomes, then neighborhoods, cities, states and countries that are more obese will have a greater toll from COVID,” said Dr. James de Lemos, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who led a study of hospitalized COVID patients published in the medical journal Circulation.

And, because in the U.S. obesity rates tend to be relatively high among African Americans and Latinos who are poor, with diminished access to health care, “it’s a triple whammy,” Dr. de Lemos said. “All these things intersect.”

Poverty and limited access to medical care are common features in the South, where residents like Michelle Antonyshyn, a former registered nurse and mother of seven in Salem, Ark., say they are afraid of the virus. Ms. Antonyshyn, 49, has obesity and debilitating pain in her knees and back, though she does not have high blood pressure or diabetes, two underlying conditions that federal health officials have determined are added risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19.

Still, she said, she “was very concerned just knowing that being obese puts you more at risk for bad outcomes such as being on a ventilator and death.” As a precaution, Ms. Antonyshyn said, she and her large brood locked down early and stopped attending church services in person, watching online instead.

“It’s not the same as having fellowship, but the risk for me was enough,” said Ms. Antonyshyn.

Governors throughout the South seem to recognize that weight can contribute to COVID-19 complications and have pushed for vaccine eligibility rules that prioritize obesity. But on the ground, local health officials are girding for having to tell newly eligible people who qualify as obese that there aren’t enough shots to go around.

In Port Gibson, Miss., Mheja Williams, MD, medical director of the Claiborne County Family Health Center, has been receiving barely enough doses to inoculate the health workers and oldest seniors in her county of 9,600. One week in early February, she received 100 doses.

Obesity and extreme obesity are endemic in Claiborne County, and health officials say the “normalization” of obesity means people often don’t register their weight as a risk factor, whether for COVID or other health issues. The risks are exacerbated by a general flouting of pandemic etiquette: Dr. Williams said that middle-aged and younger residents are not especially vigilant about physical distancing and that mask use is rare.

The rise of obesity in the United States is well documented over the past half-century, as the nation turned from a diet of fruits, vegetables and limited meats to one laden with ultra-processed foods and rich with salt, fat, sugar, and flavorings, along with copious amounts of meat, fast food, and soda. The U.S. has generally led the global obesity race, setting records as even toddlers and young children grew implausibly, dangerously overweight.

Well before COVID, obesity was a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The National Institutes of Health declared it a disease in 1998, one that fosters heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and breast, colon, and other cancers.

Researchers say it is no coincidence that nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with relatively high obesity rates, have proved particularly vulnerable to the novel coronavirus.

They believe the virus may exploit underlying metabolic and physiological impairments that often exist in concert with obesity. Extra fat can lead to a cascade of metabolic disruptions, chronic systemic inflammation, and hormonal dysregulation that may thwart the body’s response to infection.

Other respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS, which appeared in China in 2002, rely on cholesterol to spread enveloped RNA virus to neighboring cells, and researchers have proposed that a similar mechanism may play a role in the spread of the novel coronavirus.

There are also practical problems for coronavirus patients with obesity admitted to the hospital. They can be more difficult to intubate because of excess central weight pressing down on the diaphragm, making breathing with infected lungs even more difficult.

Physicians who specialize in treating patients with obesity say public health officials need to be more forthright and urgent in their messaging, telegraphing the risks of this COVID era.

“It should be explicit and direct,” said Fatima Stanford, MD, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a Harvard Medical School instructor.

Dr. Stanford denounces the fat-shaming and bullying that people with obesity often experience. But telling patients – and the public – that obesity increases the risk of hospitalization and death is crucial, she said.

“I don’t think it’s stigmatizing,” she said. “If you tell them in that way, it’s not to scare you, it’s just giving information. Sometimes people are just unaware.”



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

New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.

The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.

Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.

“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.

The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.

They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.

“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.

“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added.  “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”

For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.

The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).

The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51). 

Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.  

For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.

Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.

On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.

In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.  

Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.  

Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.

“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.

This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.

Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.

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

New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.

The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.

Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.

“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.

The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.

They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.

“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.

“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added.  “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”

For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.

The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).

The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51). 

Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.  

For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.

Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.

On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.

In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.  

Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.  

Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.

“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.

This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.

Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.

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

New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.

“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.

The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.

Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.

“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.

The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.

They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.

“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.

“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added.  “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”

For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.

The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).

The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51). 

Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.  

For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.

Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.

On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.

In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.  

Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.  

Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.

“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.

This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.

Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

More than 70% of Americans are overweight or obese and 1 in 10 has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In the last 20 years, the prevalence of obesity and DM has each increased drastically according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.^1,2 Thus, an increase in severe insulin-resistant DM is predicted. Severe insulin resistance occurs when insulin doses exceed 200 units per day or 2 units/kg per day.^3-5 Treating this condition demands large volumes of U-100 insulin and a high frequency of injections (usually 4-7 per day), which can lead to reduced patient adherence.^8-10 Likewise, large injected volumes are more painful and can lead to altered absorption.^3,9-11

U-500 insulin (500 units/mL) is 5 times more concentrated than U-100 insulin and has advantages in the management of severe insulin-resistant DM.^11-13 Its pharmacokinetic profile is unique, for the clinical effect can last for up to 24 hours.^4-6 U-500 can replace basal-bolus and other complex insulin regimens, offering convenient, effective glycemic control with 2 or 3 injections per day.^11,14-20 U-500 can also improve the quality of life and adherence compared with formulations that require more frequent injections.^7,14,21 Historically, only exceptional or “special” cases were treated with U-500, but demand for concentrated insulins has increased in the last decade as clinicians adjust their care for this growing patient population.¹⁷

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a population of subjects with severe insulin-resistant T2DM would benefit from the use of U-500 vs U-100 insulin regimens. The hypothesis was that this population would obtain equal or better glycemic control while achieving improved adherence. Other studies have demonstrated that U-500 yields improvements in glycemic control but also potentially increases hypoglycemic episodes.^15-18,22-24 To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the clinical outcomes of subjects with severe insulin-resistant T2DM who changed from U-100 to U-500 vs subjects who remained on high-dose U-100 insulin.

Methods

This was a single-site, retrospective chart review of subjects with T2DM who attended the endocrinology specialty clinic at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVA) in Tampa, Florida, between July 2002 and June 2011. The study included a group of subjects using U-500 insulin and a comparison group using U-100 insulin. The study was approved by the JAHVA Research & Development Committee and by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board.

Inclusion criteria included diagnosis of T2DM, body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, use of U-500 insulin, or > 200 units daily of U-100 insulin. Exclusion criteria included hypoglycemia unawareness, type 1 DM, and use of an insulin pump. A total of 142 subjects met the inclusion criteria (68 in the U-500 group and 74 in the U-100 group).

All study subjects had at least 1 DM education session. U-500 subjects used insulin vials and 1-mL volumetric hypodermal syringes. All U-500 prescriptions were issued electronically in units and volume (U-500 insulin was available exclusively in vials during the time frame from which data were collected). Subjects in the U-100 group used insulin vials or pen devices. Laboratory studies were processed in house by the institution using high-pressure liquid chromatography to determine hemoglobin A_1C (Hb A_1C) levels. All study subjects required at least 2 Hb A_1C measurements over the observed 12 months for inclusion.

Transition to U-500 Insulin

U-500 transition was considered routinely and presented as an option for patients requiring > 200 units of insulin daily. The transition criteria included adherence to medications, follow-up appointments, and glucose monitoring recommendations, and ability to learn and apply insulin self-adjustment instructions. All subjects were given an additional U-500 insulin education session before transition. The endocrinologist calculated all starting doses by reducing the total daily dose by 20%.

Data Collection

Data were collected using the automatic data mining tools within the JAHVA Computerized Patient Record System and confirmed individually by clinical staff. Demographic data included age, race, and sex. Other parameters were weight; BMI; Hb A_1C; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); duration of DM; use of metformin and other oral agents; total daily insulin dose; number of daily injections; prior history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), including coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), or peripheral vascular disease (PVD); occurrence of severe hypoglycemia (symptomatic hypoglycemia requiring treatment assistance from another individual) and of new cardiovascular events, classified as CAD, CVA, or PVD.

For the U-500 group, data were collected and analyzed for the 3 months before (baseline) and the 12 months after the initiation of concentrated insulin. For the U-100 group, data were collected and analyzed for the comparable 3 months before (baseline) and the 12 months after the first clinic visit in which the subject started using more than 200 units per day of U-100. Frequency of follow-up visits was individualized according to clinical needs.

Clinical Endpoints

Primary outcomes included changes in Hb A_1C from baseline to the following 12 months, and the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of new ASCVD events during the study, and changes in weight, BMI, and number of injections.

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis was applied to the categorical variables using absolute and relative frequencies. For continuous variables, mean and SD, or median and interquartile range, according to the distribution were calculated. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were determined using chi-square and t test.

The primary and secondary outcomes were assessed through univariate and multivariate general linear models. Multivariate models were used to compare differences in the variation of Hb A_1C over time. Data were incomplete for the Hb A_1C in 27 subjects, 6% of the dataset (Each subject had more than one variable or observation). Therefore, a multiple imputation was used to account for the incompleteness on Hb A_1C (value substitutions by the mean and by the prior Hb A_1C and models were balanced against the unaltered data). A P value of ≤ .05 was used to determine statistical significance. The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21.

Results

Most patients were male (94%) of white race (86%), with a mean age of 57 years and comparable duration of DM (Table 1). Demographics were balanced between the groups, except for weight and BMI, both higher in the U-500 group (P < .001). Use of oral antidiabetic agents was not significantly different between groups, nor were comorbid conditions, with nearly 50% of subjects in each group affected by CKD and ASCVD, of which CAD was the most common (approximately 40% of both groups). Only about one-third of subjects used metformin and/or other oral agents, likely due to the high prevalence of CKD (contraindicating metformin) and high insulin requirements (due to correlation with β cell failure). A subgroup analysis of subjects on metformin did not demonstrate significant differences in risk of severe hypoglycemia or in Hb A_1C levels (data not shown).

Both groups had similar initial Hb A_1C baselines (> 9%) and both improved glycemic control during the study period. However, the Hb A_1C reduction was greater in the U-500 group (P= .034), 0.84% vs 0.56% for U-100 and the between-groups difference was 0.4%. (Figure 1, Tables 2 and 3).

The univariate general linear model shows a statistically significant difference in the levels of Hb A_1C within each treatment group, regardless of the imputation strategy. However, the differences were not significant when comparing postintervention Hb A_1C means between groups with unaltered data (P = .23), because the U-500 group Hb A_1C improvement gap narrowed at the end of study. In the multivariate analysis, irrespective of imputation method, the differences in Hb A_1C between group treated with U-100 and U-500 were statistically significant (Table 3).

Overall, more subjects in the U-500 group than in the U-100 group achieved Hb A_1C levels < 8.5% (56% vs 46%, respectively, P = .003) and the proportion of subjects achieving Hb A_1C levels < 7.5% doubled that of the U-100 group (26% vs 12%; Figure 2). Five subjects in the U-500 group experienced severe hypoglycemia, compared with 1 in the U-100 group (P = .08). The total daily insulin dose was significantly higher in the U-500 group (296 units daily) than in the U-100 group (209 units daily) (P < .001) (Table 2). Baseline weight and BMI differences were also significant for the U-500 and U-100 groups (P < .001). Weight gain of approximately 2 kg occurred in both groups, a change that was not statistically significant (P = .79)

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to compare subjects with obesity and T2DM using U-500 concentrated insulin with similarly matched subjects using U-100 insulin. Available studies using U-500 insulin, including prospective trials, have reported the experience after transitioning patients who “failed” U-100 regimens.^{13-16,18,21-24} This failure is a relative and transient condition that, in theory, could be improved with medical intervention and lifestyle changes. Such changes cannot be easily quantified in a clinical trial or retrospective study without a control group. This study was an attempt to fill this knowledge gap.

The U-500 intervention resulted in a 0.8% overall reduction in Hb A_1C and a significant 0.4% reduction compared to subjects using U-100. While both groups had improvement in Hb A_1C , U-500 was associated with superior reductions in Hb A_1C . This finding confirms prior assertions that U-500, compared with U-100, is associated with larger Hb A_1C improvement.^14-16

The preintervention and postintervention Hb A_1C means were > 8% in both groups. This finding suggests that lowering Hb A_1C is challenging, similar to published results demonstrating that Hb A_1C levels < 7% are achieved by fewer than one-third of U-500 users.^16-18 The explanation for this finding remains elusive, due to the methodologic limitations of a retrospective analysis. A possible explanation is the high prevalence of CKD and ASCVD among the study population, conditions which, according to guidelines justify less aggressive glycemic control efforts.²⁵ Multiple prior studies using retrospective data^8,13-16 and 2 prospective trials^18,22 demonstrated similar Hb A_1C reductions after failure of U-100 regimens.

In this study, U-500 resulted in a nominal increase in the risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes. A detailed review of the events found that most of these patients had preestablished CKD and ASCVD, and half of the subjects with sever hypoglycemic episodes had new vascular events during the study (Appendix). These findings suggest a possible correlation between CKD and ASCVD complications and the risk of severe hypoglycemic events. Pharmacokinetic profiles for U-500 have not been studied in subjects with CKD, but the clinical effect of CKD is likely prolonged by the expected reduction in insulin clearance. Similarly, the frailty associated with preexisting ASCVD, or the related polypharmacy, could be factors increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and deserve further study.

Most of the U-500 subjects used it twice daily in this study, which could have contributed to the higher hypoglycemia rate. In a prospective randomized trial Hood and colleagues reported a rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia exceeding 90% in the 2 study groups, and 8 subjects (of 325 total) had severe hypoglycemia during the 6-month observation. The group assigned to 2 daily injections had a significantly higher rate of hypoglycemic events compared with a group that had 3 injections per day.¹⁸ Additional studies are required to ascertain whether U-500, compared with specific U-100 regimens (basal-bolus vs premixed; human vs insulin analogs), results in a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia.

This study also investigated the incidence of new cardiovascular events, and no difference was found between the 2 groups. A longer observation would be required to better assess whether U-500 therapy can reduce the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. The similar incidence of complications is further evidence of the similarity between the 2 studied groups. It was also reassuring to find that weight gains were small and nearly identical in both insulin groups.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several limitations. Data about hospitalizations for congestive heart failure, amputations, progression of diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy were not collected for this analysis. As both groups of subjects were relatively small, statistical power to assess outcomes is a concern. Retrospective chart reviews may also be affected by incomplete data collections and multiple biases. No data were available for other hypoglycemic episodes, especially to calculate the rate of the more common forms of hypoglycemia. The period of data analyzed spanned only about 15 months. A longer, longitudinal assessment of the differences between these 2 groups may yield more differences, and clearer results and conclusions. Moreover, the data set had aged before publication of this report; however, the authors think that the analysis and information remain highly clinically relevant. The uncommon use of U-500, and prominence as a “special case” insulin may also lead to a detection bias for severe hypoglycemia in the U-500 group. In contrast, lapses in documentation of hypoglycemia in subjects using U-100 could have occurred. Finally, the differences in total daily dose and body weight among groups were significant and may reflect on important physiologic differences between the 2 groups that may affect the reproducibility of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had notable strengths. Comparing U-500 insulin users with similar subjects using U-100 over a period of time provides head-to-head data with potentially important clinical utility. Also, we collected and analyzed a sizable number of clinically important variables, including cardiovascular risk factors, the occurrence of new cardiovascular events, and prevalence of renal disease. The use of linear regression and multivariate analysis using multiple models also strengthened the results. Previous studies compared the outcomes in subjects using U-500 insulin with only their historical selves.^{8,13-16,18,19,22-25} Therefore, these studies analyzed the data for preconversion and postconversion of U-500 only and consistently favored U-500. This design in a retrospective study cannot eliminate the selection and/or intervention biases, as the subjects of study had inevitably “failed” prior therapies. Similarly, there is no prospective clinical trial data comparing patients on U-500 with patients on high doses of U-100 insulin. Finally, the patients in our study had high rates of comorbidities, which may have increased the applicability of our results to those of “real-life” patients in the community. To our knowledge, no other study has attempted a similar study design approach either prospectively or retrospectively.

Conclusions

In this population of elderly veterans with severely insulin-resistant T2DM, with a high incidence of CKD and ASCVD, U-500 insulin was associated with significantly greater reductions in Hb A_1C than U-100 insulin-based regimens, while requiring fewer injections. No difference was noted in the incidence of new ASCVD events. More studies are needed to assess whether U-500 may increase the risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes.

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize the invaluable help provided by the editorial staff of University of South Florida IMpact, the Intramural Review to Support Research and Scientific Publication, and especially to Richard F. Lockey, MD, who has mentored us in this beautiful journey of scientific writing and for his editorial assistance. A portion of this study preliminary data was presented as an abstract at ENDO 2013, The Endocrine Society Annual meeting in San Francisco, CA, June 15-18, 2013.

Appendix. Severe Hypoglycemic Events

Subject 1: U-500 user, 61-year-old African American male. Hypoglycemia occurred during fasting and was associated with a seizure-like event 9 months after transition to concentrated insulin. He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital. No additional data were obtained. Hb A_1C was 8.2% in the month before the episode (lowest of the studied period) and increased to 9.1% in the last segment of the study.

Subject 2: U-500 user, 57-year-old white male. The severe hypoglycemic episode occurred approximately 8 months after transition. His Hb A_1C was 5.6% around the time of the event, the lowest of the studied period, and increased to 6.8% over the next 4 months. No other data were available.

Subject 3: U-500 user, 67-year-old white male. The event occurred at home in the morning while fasting, 3 months after transition. He was assisted by his family. Hb A_1C was 7.1% 10 weeks after the event and was 7% at the end of the studied period. He had a history of CKD and PVD.

Subject 4: U-500 user, 68-year-old white male. He presented with altered consciousness, hypoglycemia, and elevated troponin levels, which was later confirmed as a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 7 months after transition. Hb A_1C during the events was 7.1% and was followed by a 9.3% level 9 weeks later. He had history of CKD and PVD.

Subject 5: U-500 user, 67-year-old white man. Hypoglycemia occurred 6 months after transition to U-500. Hb A_1C was 8.4% 2 months prior, and was followed by a 7% during the admission for severe hypoglycemia. 3 months later, his HbA1c rose to 8.2%. He had an extensive history of CAD and had a NSTEMI during the study period.

Subject 6: U-100 user, 65-year-old white man. He was found unconscious in the morning while fasting, 6 months after his first clinic visit. He had CKD and advanced ASCVD with prior CAD, PVD, and CVA. He had also had a recent CVA that had affected his movement and cognition.

More than 70% of Americans are overweight or obese and 1 in 10 has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In the last 20 years, the prevalence of obesity and DM has each increased drastically according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.^1,2 Thus, an increase in severe insulin-resistant DM is predicted. Severe insulin resistance occurs when insulin doses exceed 200 units per day or 2 units/kg per day.^3-5 Treating this condition demands large volumes of U-100 insulin and a high frequency of injections (usually 4-7 per day), which can lead to reduced patient adherence.^8-10 Likewise, large injected volumes are more painful and can lead to altered absorption.^3,9-11

U-500 insulin (500 units/mL) is 5 times more concentrated than U-100 insulin and has advantages in the management of severe insulin-resistant DM.^11-13 Its pharmacokinetic profile is unique, for the clinical effect can last for up to 24 hours.^4-6 U-500 can replace basal-bolus and other complex insulin regimens, offering convenient, effective glycemic control with 2 or 3 injections per day.^11,14-20 U-500 can also improve the quality of life and adherence compared with formulations that require more frequent injections.^7,14,21 Historically, only exceptional or “special” cases were treated with U-500, but demand for concentrated insulins has increased in the last decade as clinicians adjust their care for this growing patient population.¹⁷

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a population of subjects with severe insulin-resistant T2DM would benefit from the use of U-500 vs U-100 insulin regimens. The hypothesis was that this population would obtain equal or better glycemic control while achieving improved adherence. Other studies have demonstrated that U-500 yields improvements in glycemic control but also potentially increases hypoglycemic episodes.^15-18,22-24 To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the clinical outcomes of subjects with severe insulin-resistant T2DM who changed from U-100 to U-500 vs subjects who remained on high-dose U-100 insulin.

Methods

This was a single-site, retrospective chart review of subjects with T2DM who attended the endocrinology specialty clinic at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVA) in Tampa, Florida, between July 2002 and June 2011. The study included a group of subjects using U-500 insulin and a comparison group using U-100 insulin. The study was approved by the JAHVA Research & Development Committee and by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board.

Inclusion criteria included diagnosis of T2DM, body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, use of U-500 insulin, or > 200 units daily of U-100 insulin. Exclusion criteria included hypoglycemia unawareness, type 1 DM, and use of an insulin pump. A total of 142 subjects met the inclusion criteria (68 in the U-500 group and 74 in the U-100 group).

All study subjects had at least 1 DM education session. U-500 subjects used insulin vials and 1-mL volumetric hypodermal syringes. All U-500 prescriptions were issued electronically in units and volume (U-500 insulin was available exclusively in vials during the time frame from which data were collected). Subjects in the U-100 group used insulin vials or pen devices. Laboratory studies were processed in house by the institution using high-pressure liquid chromatography to determine hemoglobin A_1C (Hb A_1C) levels. All study subjects required at least 2 Hb A_1C measurements over the observed 12 months for inclusion.

Transition to U-500 Insulin

U-500 transition was considered routinely and presented as an option for patients requiring > 200 units of insulin daily. The transition criteria included adherence to medications, follow-up appointments, and glucose monitoring recommendations, and ability to learn and apply insulin self-adjustment instructions. All subjects were given an additional U-500 insulin education session before transition. The endocrinologist calculated all starting doses by reducing the total daily dose by 20%.

Data Collection

Data were collected using the automatic data mining tools within the JAHVA Computerized Patient Record System and confirmed individually by clinical staff. Demographic data included age, race, and sex. Other parameters were weight; BMI; Hb A_1C; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); duration of DM; use of metformin and other oral agents; total daily insulin dose; number of daily injections; prior history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), including coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), or peripheral vascular disease (PVD); occurrence of severe hypoglycemia (symptomatic hypoglycemia requiring treatment assistance from another individual) and of new cardiovascular events, classified as CAD, CVA, or PVD.

For the U-500 group, data were collected and analyzed for the 3 months before (baseline) and the 12 months after the initiation of concentrated insulin. For the U-100 group, data were collected and analyzed for the comparable 3 months before (baseline) and the 12 months after the first clinic visit in which the subject started using more than 200 units per day of U-100. Frequency of follow-up visits was individualized according to clinical needs.

Clinical Endpoints

Primary outcomes included changes in Hb A_1C from baseline to the following 12 months, and the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of new ASCVD events during the study, and changes in weight, BMI, and number of injections.

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis was applied to the categorical variables using absolute and relative frequencies. For continuous variables, mean and SD, or median and interquartile range, according to the distribution were calculated. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were determined using chi-square and t test.

The primary and secondary outcomes were assessed through univariate and multivariate general linear models. Multivariate models were used to compare differences in the variation of Hb A_1C over time. Data were incomplete for the Hb A_1C in 27 subjects, 6% of the dataset (Each subject had more than one variable or observation). Therefore, a multiple imputation was used to account for the incompleteness on Hb A_1C (value substitutions by the mean and by the prior Hb A_1C and models were balanced against the unaltered data). A P value of ≤ .05 was used to determine statistical significance. The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21.

Results

Most patients were male (94%) of white race (86%), with a mean age of 57 years and comparable duration of DM (Table 1). Demographics were balanced between the groups, except for weight and BMI, both higher in the U-500 group (P < .001). Use of oral antidiabetic agents was not significantly different between groups, nor were comorbid conditions, with nearly 50% of subjects in each group affected by CKD and ASCVD, of which CAD was the most common (approximately 40% of both groups). Only about one-third of subjects used metformin and/or other oral agents, likely due to the high prevalence of CKD (contraindicating metformin) and high insulin requirements (due to correlation with β cell failure). A subgroup analysis of subjects on metformin did not demonstrate significant differences in risk of severe hypoglycemia or in Hb A_1C levels (data not shown).

Both groups had similar initial Hb A_1C baselines (> 9%) and both improved glycemic control during the study period. However, the Hb A_1C reduction was greater in the U-500 group (P= .034), 0.84% vs 0.56% for U-100 and the between-groups difference was 0.4%. (Figure 1, Tables 2 and 3).

The univariate general linear model shows a statistically significant difference in the levels of Hb A_1C within each treatment group, regardless of the imputation strategy. However, the differences were not significant when comparing postintervention Hb A_1C means between groups with unaltered data (P = .23), because the U-500 group Hb A_1C improvement gap narrowed at the end of study. In the multivariate analysis, irrespective of imputation method, the differences in Hb A_1C between group treated with U-100 and U-500 were statistically significant (Table 3).

Overall, more subjects in the U-500 group than in the U-100 group achieved Hb A_1C levels < 8.5% (56% vs 46%, respectively, P = .003) and the proportion of subjects achieving Hb A_1C levels < 7.5% doubled that of the U-100 group (26% vs 12%; Figure 2). Five subjects in the U-500 group experienced severe hypoglycemia, compared with 1 in the U-100 group (P = .08). The total daily insulin dose was significantly higher in the U-500 group (296 units daily) than in the U-100 group (209 units daily) (P < .001) (Table 2). Baseline weight and BMI differences were also significant for the U-500 and U-100 groups (P < .001). Weight gain of approximately 2 kg occurred in both groups, a change that was not statistically significant (P = .79)

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to compare subjects with obesity and T2DM using U-500 concentrated insulin with similarly matched subjects using U-100 insulin. Available studies using U-500 insulin, including prospective trials, have reported the experience after transitioning patients who “failed” U-100 regimens.^{13-16,18,21-24} This failure is a relative and transient condition that, in theory, could be improved with medical intervention and lifestyle changes. Such changes cannot be easily quantified in a clinical trial or retrospective study without a control group. This study was an attempt to fill this knowledge gap.

The U-500 intervention resulted in a 0.8% overall reduction in Hb A_1C and a significant 0.4% reduction compared to subjects using U-100. While both groups had improvement in Hb A_1C , U-500 was associated with superior reductions in Hb A_1C . This finding confirms prior assertions that U-500, compared with U-100, is associated with larger Hb A_1C improvement.^14-16

The preintervention and postintervention Hb A_1C means were > 8% in both groups. This finding suggests that lowering Hb A_1C is challenging, similar to published results demonstrating that Hb A_1C levels < 7% are achieved by fewer than one-third of U-500 users.^16-18 The explanation for this finding remains elusive, due to the methodologic limitations of a retrospective analysis. A possible explanation is the high prevalence of CKD and ASCVD among the study population, conditions which, according to guidelines justify less aggressive glycemic control efforts.²⁵ Multiple prior studies using retrospective data^8,13-16 and 2 prospective trials^18,22 demonstrated similar Hb A_1C reductions after failure of U-100 regimens.

In this study, U-500 resulted in a nominal increase in the risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes. A detailed review of the events found that most of these patients had preestablished CKD and ASCVD, and half of the subjects with sever hypoglycemic episodes had new vascular events during the study (Appendix). These findings suggest a possible correlation between CKD and ASCVD complications and the risk of severe hypoglycemic events. Pharmacokinetic profiles for U-500 have not been studied in subjects with CKD, but the clinical effect of CKD is likely prolonged by the expected reduction in insulin clearance. Similarly, the frailty associated with preexisting ASCVD, or the related polypharmacy, could be factors increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and deserve further study.

Most of the U-500 subjects used it twice daily in this study, which could have contributed to the higher hypoglycemia rate. In a prospective randomized trial Hood and colleagues reported a rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia exceeding 90% in the 2 study groups, and 8 subjects (of 325 total) had severe hypoglycemia during the 6-month observation. The group assigned to 2 daily injections had a significantly higher rate of hypoglycemic events compared with a group that had 3 injections per day.¹⁸ Additional studies are required to ascertain whether U-500, compared with specific U-100 regimens (basal-bolus vs premixed; human vs insulin analogs), results in a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia.

This study also investigated the incidence of new cardiovascular events, and no difference was found between the 2 groups. A longer observation would be required to better assess whether U-500 therapy can reduce the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. The similar incidence of complications is further evidence of the similarity between the 2 studied groups. It was also reassuring to find that weight gains were small and nearly identical in both insulin groups.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several limitations. Data about hospitalizations for congestive heart failure, amputations, progression of diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy were not collected for this analysis. As both groups of subjects were relatively small, statistical power to assess outcomes is a concern. Retrospective chart reviews may also be affected by incomplete data collections and multiple biases. No data were available for other hypoglycemic episodes, especially to calculate the rate of the more common forms of hypoglycemia. The period of data analyzed spanned only about 15 months. A longer, longitudinal assessment of the differences between these 2 groups may yield more differences, and clearer results and conclusions. Moreover, the data set had aged before publication of this report; however, the authors think that the analysis and information remain highly clinically relevant. The uncommon use of U-500, and prominence as a “special case” insulin may also lead to a detection bias for severe hypoglycemia in the U-500 group. In contrast, lapses in documentation of hypoglycemia in subjects using U-100 could have occurred. Finally, the differences in total daily dose and body weight among groups were significant and may reflect on important physiologic differences between the 2 groups that may affect the reproducibility of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had notable strengths. Comparing U-500 insulin users with similar subjects using U-100 over a period of time provides head-to-head data with potentially important clinical utility. Also, we collected and analyzed a sizable number of clinically important variables, including cardiovascular risk factors, the occurrence of new cardiovascular events, and prevalence of renal disease. The use of linear regression and multivariate analysis using multiple models also strengthened the results. Previous studies compared the outcomes in subjects using U-500 insulin with only their historical selves.^{8,13-16,18,19,22-25} Therefore, these studies analyzed the data for preconversion and postconversion of U-500 only and consistently favored U-500. This design in a retrospective study cannot eliminate the selection and/or intervention biases, as the subjects of study had inevitably “failed” prior therapies. Similarly, there is no prospective clinical trial data comparing patients on U-500 with patients on high doses of U-100 insulin. Finally, the patients in our study had high rates of comorbidities, which may have increased the applicability of our results to those of “real-life” patients in the community. To our knowledge, no other study has attempted a similar study design approach either prospectively or retrospectively.

Conclusions

In this population of elderly veterans with severely insulin-resistant T2DM, with a high incidence of CKD and ASCVD, U-500 insulin was associated with significantly greater reductions in Hb A_1C than U-100 insulin-based regimens, while requiring fewer injections. No difference was noted in the incidence of new ASCVD events. More studies are needed to assess whether U-500 may increase the risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes.

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize the invaluable help provided by the editorial staff of University of South Florida IMpact, the Intramural Review to Support Research and Scientific Publication, and especially to Richard F. Lockey, MD, who has mentored us in this beautiful journey of scientific writing and for his editorial assistance. A portion of this study preliminary data was presented as an abstract at ENDO 2013, The Endocrine Society Annual meeting in San Francisco, CA, June 15-18, 2013.

Appendix. Severe Hypoglycemic Events

Subject 1: U-500 user, 61-year-old African American male. Hypoglycemia occurred during fasting and was associated with a seizure-like event 9 months after transition to concentrated insulin. He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital. No additional data were obtained. Hb A_1C was 8.2% in the month before the episode (lowest of the studied period) and increased to 9.1% in the last segment of the study.

Subject 2: U-500 user, 57-year-old white male. The severe hypoglycemic episode occurred approximately 8 months after transition. His Hb A_1C was 5.6% around the time of the event, the lowest of the studied period, and increased to 6.8% over the next 4 months. No other data were available.

Subject 3: U-500 user, 67-year-old white male. The event occurred at home in the morning while fasting, 3 months after transition. He was assisted by his family. Hb A_1C was 7.1% 10 weeks after the event and was 7% at the end of the studied period. He had a history of CKD and PVD.

Subject 4: U-500 user, 68-year-old white male. He presented with altered consciousness, hypoglycemia, and elevated troponin levels, which was later confirmed as a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 7 months after transition. Hb A_1C during the events was 7.1% and was followed by a 9.3% level 9 weeks later. He had history of CKD and PVD.

Subject 5: U-500 user, 67-year-old white man. Hypoglycemia occurred 6 months after transition to U-500. Hb A_1C was 8.4% 2 months prior, and was followed by a 7% during the admission for severe hypoglycemia. 3 months later, his HbA1c rose to 8.2%. He had an extensive history of CAD and had a NSTEMI during the study period.

Subject 6: U-100 user, 65-year-old white man. He was found unconscious in the morning while fasting, 6 months after his first clinic visit. He had CKD and advanced ASCVD with prior CAD, PVD, and CVA. He had also had a recent CVA that had affected his movement and cognition.

More than 70% of Americans are overweight or obese and 1 in 10 has type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In the last 20 years, the prevalence of obesity and DM has each increased drastically according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.^1,2 Thus, an increase in severe insulin-resistant DM is predicted. Severe insulin resistance occurs when insulin doses exceed 200 units per day or 2 units/kg per day.^3-5 Treating this condition demands large volumes of U-100 insulin and a high frequency of injections (usually 4-7 per day), which can lead to reduced patient adherence.^8-10 Likewise, large injected volumes are more painful and can lead to altered absorption.^3,9-11

U-500 insulin (500 units/mL) is 5 times more concentrated than U-100 insulin and has advantages in the management of severe insulin-resistant DM.^11-13 Its pharmacokinetic profile is unique, for the clinical effect can last for up to 24 hours.^4-6 U-500 can replace basal-bolus and other complex insulin regimens, offering convenient, effective glycemic control with 2 or 3 injections per day.^11,14-20 U-500 can also improve the quality of life and adherence compared with formulations that require more frequent injections.^7,14,21 Historically, only exceptional or “special” cases were treated with U-500, but demand for concentrated insulins has increased in the last decade as clinicians adjust their care for this growing patient population.¹⁷

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a population of subjects with severe insulin-resistant T2DM would benefit from the use of U-500 vs U-100 insulin regimens. The hypothesis was that this population would obtain equal or better glycemic control while achieving improved adherence. Other studies have demonstrated that U-500 yields improvements in glycemic control but also potentially increases hypoglycemic episodes.^15-18,22-24 To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the clinical outcomes of subjects with severe insulin-resistant T2DM who changed from U-100 to U-500 vs subjects who remained on high-dose U-100 insulin.

Methods

This was a single-site, retrospective chart review of subjects with T2DM who attended the endocrinology specialty clinic at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital (JAHVA) in Tampa, Florida, between July 2002 and June 2011. The study included a group of subjects using U-500 insulin and a comparison group using U-100 insulin. The study was approved by the JAHVA Research & Development Committee and by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board.

Inclusion criteria included diagnosis of T2DM, body mass index (BMI) of more than 30, use of U-500 insulin, or > 200 units daily of U-100 insulin. Exclusion criteria included hypoglycemia unawareness, type 1 DM, and use of an insulin pump. A total of 142 subjects met the inclusion criteria (68 in the U-500 group and 74 in the U-100 group).

All study subjects had at least 1 DM education session. U-500 subjects used insulin vials and 1-mL volumetric hypodermal syringes. All U-500 prescriptions were issued electronically in units and volume (U-500 insulin was available exclusively in vials during the time frame from which data were collected). Subjects in the U-100 group used insulin vials or pen devices. Laboratory studies were processed in house by the institution using high-pressure liquid chromatography to determine hemoglobin A_1C (Hb A_1C) levels. All study subjects required at least 2 Hb A_1C measurements over the observed 12 months for inclusion.

Transition to U-500 Insulin

U-500 transition was considered routinely and presented as an option for patients requiring > 200 units of insulin daily. The transition criteria included adherence to medications, follow-up appointments, and glucose monitoring recommendations, and ability to learn and apply insulin self-adjustment instructions. All subjects were given an additional U-500 insulin education session before transition. The endocrinologist calculated all starting doses by reducing the total daily dose by 20%.

Data Collection

Data were collected using the automatic data mining tools within the JAHVA Computerized Patient Record System and confirmed individually by clinical staff. Demographic data included age, race, and sex. Other parameters were weight; BMI; Hb A_1C; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); duration of DM; use of metformin and other oral agents; total daily insulin dose; number of daily injections; prior history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), including coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), or peripheral vascular disease (PVD); occurrence of severe hypoglycemia (symptomatic hypoglycemia requiring treatment assistance from another individual) and of new cardiovascular events, classified as CAD, CVA, or PVD.

For the U-500 group, data were collected and analyzed for the 3 months before (baseline) and the 12 months after the initiation of concentrated insulin. For the U-100 group, data were collected and analyzed for the comparable 3 months before (baseline) and the 12 months after the first clinic visit in which the subject started using more than 200 units per day of U-100. Frequency of follow-up visits was individualized according to clinical needs.

Clinical Endpoints

Primary outcomes included changes in Hb A_1C from baseline to the following 12 months, and the occurrence of severe hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of new ASCVD events during the study, and changes in weight, BMI, and number of injections.

Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis was applied to the categorical variables using absolute and relative frequencies. For continuous variables, mean and SD, or median and interquartile range, according to the distribution were calculated. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were determined using chi-square and t test.

The primary and secondary outcomes were assessed through univariate and multivariate general linear models. Multivariate models were used to compare differences in the variation of Hb A_1C over time. Data were incomplete for the Hb A_1C in 27 subjects, 6% of the dataset (Each subject had more than one variable or observation). Therefore, a multiple imputation was used to account for the incompleteness on Hb A_1C (value substitutions by the mean and by the prior Hb A_1C and models were balanced against the unaltered data). A P value of ≤ .05 was used to determine statistical significance. The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21.

Results

Most patients were male (94%) of white race (86%), with a mean age of 57 years and comparable duration of DM (Table 1). Demographics were balanced between the groups, except for weight and BMI, both higher in the U-500 group (P < .001). Use of oral antidiabetic agents was not significantly different between groups, nor were comorbid conditions, with nearly 50% of subjects in each group affected by CKD and ASCVD, of which CAD was the most common (approximately 40% of both groups). Only about one-third of subjects used metformin and/or other oral agents, likely due to the high prevalence of CKD (contraindicating metformin) and high insulin requirements (due to correlation with β cell failure). A subgroup analysis of subjects on metformin did not demonstrate significant differences in risk of severe hypoglycemia or in Hb A_1C levels (data not shown).

Both groups had similar initial Hb A_1C baselines (> 9%) and both improved glycemic control during the study period. However, the Hb A_1C reduction was greater in the U-500 group (P= .034), 0.84% vs 0.56% for U-100 and the between-groups difference was 0.4%. (Figure 1, Tables 2 and 3).

The univariate general linear model shows a statistically significant difference in the levels of Hb A_1C within each treatment group, regardless of the imputation strategy. However, the differences were not significant when comparing postintervention Hb A_1C means between groups with unaltered data (P = .23), because the U-500 group Hb A_1C improvement gap narrowed at the end of study. In the multivariate analysis, irrespective of imputation method, the differences in Hb A_1C between group treated with U-100 and U-500 were statistically significant (Table 3).

Overall, more subjects in the U-500 group than in the U-100 group achieved Hb A_1C levels < 8.5% (56% vs 46%, respectively, P = .003) and the proportion of subjects achieving Hb A_1C levels < 7.5% doubled that of the U-100 group (26% vs 12%; Figure 2). Five subjects in the U-500 group experienced severe hypoglycemia, compared with 1 in the U-100 group (P = .08). The total daily insulin dose was significantly higher in the U-500 group (296 units daily) than in the U-100 group (209 units daily) (P < .001) (Table 2). Baseline weight and BMI differences were also significant for the U-500 and U-100 groups (P < .001). Weight gain of approximately 2 kg occurred in both groups, a change that was not statistically significant (P = .79)

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to compare subjects with obesity and T2DM using U-500 concentrated insulin with similarly matched subjects using U-100 insulin. Available studies using U-500 insulin, including prospective trials, have reported the experience after transitioning patients who “failed” U-100 regimens.^{13-16,18,21-24} This failure is a relative and transient condition that, in theory, could be improved with medical intervention and lifestyle changes. Such changes cannot be easily quantified in a clinical trial or retrospective study without a control group. This study was an attempt to fill this knowledge gap.

The U-500 intervention resulted in a 0.8% overall reduction in Hb A_1C and a significant 0.4% reduction compared to subjects using U-100. While both groups had improvement in Hb A_1C , U-500 was associated with superior reductions in Hb A_1C . This finding confirms prior assertions that U-500, compared with U-100, is associated with larger Hb A_1C improvement.^14-16

The preintervention and postintervention Hb A_1C means were > 8% in both groups. This finding suggests that lowering Hb A_1C is challenging, similar to published results demonstrating that Hb A_1C levels < 7% are achieved by fewer than one-third of U-500 users.^16-18 The explanation for this finding remains elusive, due to the methodologic limitations of a retrospective analysis. A possible explanation is the high prevalence of CKD and ASCVD among the study population, conditions which, according to guidelines justify less aggressive glycemic control efforts.²⁵ Multiple prior studies using retrospective data^8,13-16 and 2 prospective trials^18,22 demonstrated similar Hb A_1C reductions after failure of U-100 regimens.

In this study, U-500 resulted in a nominal increase in the risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes. A detailed review of the events found that most of these patients had preestablished CKD and ASCVD, and half of the subjects with sever hypoglycemic episodes had new vascular events during the study (Appendix). These findings suggest a possible correlation between CKD and ASCVD complications and the risk of severe hypoglycemic events. Pharmacokinetic profiles for U-500 have not been studied in subjects with CKD, but the clinical effect of CKD is likely prolonged by the expected reduction in insulin clearance. Similarly, the frailty associated with preexisting ASCVD, or the related polypharmacy, could be factors increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and deserve further study.

Most of the U-500 subjects used it twice daily in this study, which could have contributed to the higher hypoglycemia rate. In a prospective randomized trial Hood and colleagues reported a rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia exceeding 90% in the 2 study groups, and 8 subjects (of 325 total) had severe hypoglycemia during the 6-month observation. The group assigned to 2 daily injections had a significantly higher rate of hypoglycemic events compared with a group that had 3 injections per day.¹⁸ Additional studies are required to ascertain whether U-500, compared with specific U-100 regimens (basal-bolus vs premixed; human vs insulin analogs), results in a higher risk of severe hypoglycemia.

This study also investigated the incidence of new cardiovascular events, and no difference was found between the 2 groups. A longer observation would be required to better assess whether U-500 therapy can reduce the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. The similar incidence of complications is further evidence of the similarity between the 2 studied groups. It was also reassuring to find that weight gains were small and nearly identical in both insulin groups.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several limitations. Data about hospitalizations for congestive heart failure, amputations, progression of diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy were not collected for this analysis. As both groups of subjects were relatively small, statistical power to assess outcomes is a concern. Retrospective chart reviews may also be affected by incomplete data collections and multiple biases. No data were available for other hypoglycemic episodes, especially to calculate the rate of the more common forms of hypoglycemia. The period of data analyzed spanned only about 15 months. A longer, longitudinal assessment of the differences between these 2 groups may yield more differences, and clearer results and conclusions. Moreover, the data set had aged before publication of this report; however, the authors think that the analysis and information remain highly clinically relevant. The uncommon use of U-500, and prominence as a “special case” insulin may also lead to a detection bias for severe hypoglycemia in the U-500 group. In contrast, lapses in documentation of hypoglycemia in subjects using U-100 could have occurred. Finally, the differences in total daily dose and body weight among groups were significant and may reflect on important physiologic differences between the 2 groups that may affect the reproducibility of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had notable strengths. Comparing U-500 insulin users with similar subjects using U-100 over a period of time provides head-to-head data with potentially important clinical utility. Also, we collected and analyzed a sizable number of clinically important variables, including cardiovascular risk factors, the occurrence of new cardiovascular events, and prevalence of renal disease. The use of linear regression and multivariate analysis using multiple models also strengthened the results. Previous studies compared the outcomes in subjects using U-500 insulin with only their historical selves.^{8,13-16,18,19,22-25} Therefore, these studies analyzed the data for preconversion and postconversion of U-500 only and consistently favored U-500. This design in a retrospective study cannot eliminate the selection and/or intervention biases, as the subjects of study had inevitably “failed” prior therapies. Similarly, there is no prospective clinical trial data comparing patients on U-500 with patients on high doses of U-100 insulin. Finally, the patients in our study had high rates of comorbidities, which may have increased the applicability of our results to those of “real-life” patients in the community. To our knowledge, no other study has attempted a similar study design approach either prospectively or retrospectively.

Conclusions

In this population of elderly veterans with severely insulin-resistant T2DM, with a high incidence of CKD and ASCVD, U-500 insulin was associated with significantly greater reductions in Hb A_1C than U-100 insulin-based regimens, while requiring fewer injections. No difference was noted in the incidence of new ASCVD events. More studies are needed to assess whether U-500 may increase the risk of severe hypoglycemic episodes.

Acknowledgments

The authors recognize the invaluable help provided by the editorial staff of University of South Florida IMpact, the Intramural Review to Support Research and Scientific Publication, and especially to Richard F. Lockey, MD, who has mentored us in this beautiful journey of scientific writing and for his editorial assistance. A portion of this study preliminary data was presented as an abstract at ENDO 2013, The Endocrine Society Annual meeting in San Francisco, CA, June 15-18, 2013.

Appendix. Severe Hypoglycemic Events

Subject 1: U-500 user, 61-year-old African American male. Hypoglycemia occurred during fasting and was associated with a seizure-like event 9 months after transition to concentrated insulin. He was taken by ambulance to a local hospital. No additional data were obtained. Hb A_1C was 8.2% in the month before the episode (lowest of the studied period) and increased to 9.1% in the last segment of the study.

Subject 2: U-500 user, 57-year-old white male. The severe hypoglycemic episode occurred approximately 8 months after transition. His Hb A_1C was 5.6% around the time of the event, the lowest of the studied period, and increased to 6.8% over the next 4 months. No other data were available.

Subject 3: U-500 user, 67-year-old white male. The event occurred at home in the morning while fasting, 3 months after transition. He was assisted by his family. Hb A_1C was 7.1% 10 weeks after the event and was 7% at the end of the studied period. He had a history of CKD and PVD.

Subject 4: U-500 user, 68-year-old white male. He presented with altered consciousness, hypoglycemia, and elevated troponin levels, which was later confirmed as a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 7 months after transition. Hb A_1C during the events was 7.1% and was followed by a 9.3% level 9 weeks later. He had history of CKD and PVD.

Subject 5: U-500 user, 67-year-old white man. Hypoglycemia occurred 6 months after transition to U-500. Hb A_1C was 8.4% 2 months prior, and was followed by a 7% during the admission for severe hypoglycemia. 3 months later, his HbA1c rose to 8.2%. He had an extensive history of CAD and had a NSTEMI during the study period.

Subject 6: U-100 user, 65-year-old white man. He was found unconscious in the morning while fasting, 6 months after his first clinic visit. He had CKD and advanced ASCVD with prior CAD, PVD, and CVA. He had also had a recent CVA that had affected his movement and cognition.

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.

In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.

The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.

“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.

The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.

“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.

A new universal definition

“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”

This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”

Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.

“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.

For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.

Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum

Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.

The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:

• At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
• Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
• HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
• Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.

MDedge News

One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”

“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.

The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.

“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
 

New classifications according to LVEF

And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.

“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:

• HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
• HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
• HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
• HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.

HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
 

Improved, not recovered, HF

The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.

“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.

“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.

“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.

Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.

“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.

“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
 

One step toward universality

“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”

In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.

Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.

“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”

To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.

Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.

The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.

In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.

The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.

“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.

The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.

“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.

A new universal definition

“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”

This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”

Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.

“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.

For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.

Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum

Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.

The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:

• At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
• Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
• HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
• Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.

MDedge News

One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”

“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.

The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.

“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
 

New classifications according to LVEF

And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.

“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:

• HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
• HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
• HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
• HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.

HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
 

Improved, not recovered, HF

The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.

“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.

“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.

“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.

Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.

“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.

“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
 

One step toward universality

“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”

In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.

Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.

“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”

To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.

Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.

The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.

In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.

The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.

“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.

The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.

“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.

A new universal definition

“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”

This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”

Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.

“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.

For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.

Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum

Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.

The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:

• At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
• Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
• HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
• Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.

MDedge News

One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”

“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.

The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.

“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
 

New classifications according to LVEF

And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.

“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:

• HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
• HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
• HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
• HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.

HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
 

Improved, not recovered, HF

The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.

“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.

As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.

“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.

“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.

Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.

“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.

“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
 

One step toward universality

“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”

In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.

Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.

“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.

For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”

To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.

Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.

Adolescents are an increasingly diverse population reflecting changes in the racial, ethnic, and geopolitical milieus of the United States. The World Health Organization classifies adolescence as ages 10 to 19 years.¹ However, given the complexity of adolescent development physically, behaviorally, emotionally, and socially, others propose that adolescence may extend to age 24.²

Recognizing the specific challenges adolescents face is key to providing comprehensive longitudinal health care. Moreover, creating an environment of trust helps to ensure open 2-way communication that can facilitate anticipatory guidance.

Our review focuses on common adolescent issues, including injury from vehicles and firearms, tobacco and substance misuse, obesity, behavioral health, sexual health, and social media use. We discuss current trends and recommend strategies to maximize health and wellness.

Start by framing the visit

Confidentiality

Laws governing confidentiality in adolescent health care vary by state. Be aware of the laws pertaining to your practice setting. In addition, health care facilities may have their own policies regarding consent and confidentiality in adolescent care. Discuss confidentiality with both an adolescent and the parent/guardian at the initial visit. And, to help avoid potential misunderstandings, let them know in advance what will (and will not) be divulged.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has developed a useful tip sheet regarding confidentiality laws (www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/healthy-foster-care-america/Documents/Confidentiality_Laws.pdf). Examples of required (conditional) disclosure include abuse and suicidal or homicidal ideations. Patients should understand that sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are reportable to public health authorities and that potentially injurious behaviors to self or others (eg, excessive drinking prior to driving) may also warrant disclosure(TABLE 1³).

Privacy and general visit structure

Create a safe atmosphere where adolescents can discuss personal issues without fear of repercussion or judgment. While parents may prefer to be present during the visit, allowing for time to visit independently with an adolescent offers the opportunity to reinforce issues of privacy and confidentiality. Also discuss your office policies regarding electronic communication, phone communication, and relaying test results.

A useful paradigm for organizing a visit for routine adolescent care is to use an expanded version of the HEADSS mnemonic (TABLE 2^4,5), which includes questions about an adolescent’s Home, Education, Activities, Drug and alcohol use, Sexual behavior, Suicidality and depression, and other topics. Other validated screening tools include RAAPS (Rapid Adolescent Prevention Screening)⁶ (www.possibilitiesforchange.com/raaps/); the Guidelines for Adolescent Preventive Services⁷; and the Bright Futures recommendations for preventive care from the American Academy of Pediatrics.⁸ Below, we consider important topics addressed with the HEADSS approach.

Continue to: Injury from vehicles and firearms

Motor vehicle accidents and firearm wounds are the 2 leading causes of adolescent injury. In 2016, of the more than 20,000 deaths in children and adolescents (ages 1-19 years), 20% were due to motor vehicle accidents (4074) and 15% were a result of firearm-­related injuries (3143). Among firearm-­related deaths, 60% were homicides, 35% were suicides, and 4% were due to accidental discharge.⁹ The rate of firearm-related deaths among American teens is 36 times greater than that of any other developed nation.⁹ Currently, 1 of every 3 US households with children younger than 18 has a firearm. Data suggest that in 43% of these households, the firearm is loaded and kept in an unlocked location.¹⁰

To aid anticipatory guidance, ask adolescents about firearm and seat belt use, drinking and driving, and suicidal thoughts (TABLE 2^4,5). Advise them to always wear seat belts whether driving or riding as a passenger. They should never drink and drive (or get in a car with someone who has been drinking). Advise parents that if firearms are present in the household, they should be kept in a secure, locked location. Weapons should be separated from ammunition and safety mechanisms should be engaged on all devices.

Tobacco and substance misuse

Tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States,¹¹ is responsible for more deaths than alcohol, motor vehicle accidents, suicides, homicides, and HIV disease combined.¹² Most tobacco-associated mortality occurs in individuals who began smoking before the age of 18.¹² Individuals who start smoking early are also more likely to continue smoking through adulthood.

Encouragingly, tobacco use has declined significantly among adolescents over the past several decades. Roughly 1 in 25 high school seniors reports daily tobacco use.¹³ Adolescent smoking behaviors are also changing dramatically with the increasing popularity of electronic cigarettes (“vaping”). Currently, more adolescents vape than smoke cigarettes.¹³ Vaping has additional health risks including toxic lung injury.

Multiple resources can help combat tobacco and nicotine use in adolescents. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians intervene through education or brief counselling to prevent initiation of tobacco use in school-aged children and adolescents.¹⁴ Ask teens about tobacco and electronic cigarette use and encourage them to quit when use is acknowledged. Other helpful office-based tools are the “Quit Line” 800-QUIT-NOW and texting “Quit” to 47848. Smokefree teen (https://teen.smokefree.gov/) is a website that reviews the risks of tobacco and nicotine use and provides age-appropriate cessation tools and tips (including a smartphone app and a live-chat feature). Other useful information is available in a report from the Surgeon General on preventing tobacco use among young adults.¹⁵

Continue to: Alcohol use

Alcohol use. Three in 5 high school students report ever having used alcohol.¹³ As with tobacco, adolescent alcohol use has declined over the past decade. However, binge drinking (≥ 5 drinks on 1 occasion for males; ≥ 4 drinks on 1 occasion for females) remains a common high-risk behavior among adolescents (particularly college students). Based on the Monitoring the Future Survey, 1 in 6 high school seniors reported binge drinking in the past 2 weeks.¹³ While historically more common among males, rates of binge drinking are now basically similar between male and female adolescents.¹³

While historically more common among males, rates of binge drinking are now basically similar between male and female adolescents.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has a screening and intervention guide specifically for adolescents.¹⁶A 2-question screening tool asking about personal use of alcohol and use of alcohol by friends is followed by a risk assessment with recommendations to advise young patients not to drink and to assist them with appropriate intervention and follow-up (https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/YouthGuide/YouthGuidePocket.pdf).

Illicit drug use. Half of adolescents report using an illicit drug by their senior year in high school.¹³ Marijuana is the most commonly used substance, and laws governing its use are rapidly changing across the United States. Marijuana is illegal in 10 states and legal in 10 states (and the District of Columbia). The remaining states have varying policies on the medical use of marijuana and the decriminalization of marijuana. In addition, cannabinoid (CBD) products are increasingly available. Frequent cannabis use in adolescence has an adverse impact on general executive function (compared with adult users) and learning.¹⁷ Marijuana may serve as a gateway drug in the abuse of other substances,¹⁸ and its use should be strongly discouraged in adolescents.

Of note, there has been a sharp rise in the illicit use of prescription drugs, particularly opioids, creating a public health emergency across the United States.¹⁹ In 2015, more than 4000 young people, ages 15 to 24, died from a drug-related overdose (> 50% of these attributable to opioids).²⁰ Adolescents with a history of substance abuse and behavioral illness are at particular risk. Many adolescents who misuse opioids and other prescription drugs obtain them from friends and relatives.²¹

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) recommends universal screening of adolescents for substance abuse. This screening should be accompanied by a brief intervention to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate substance use, or a referral to appropriate treatment sources. This process of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as part of routine health care.²²

Continue to: Obesity and physical activity

Obesity and physical activity

The percentage of overweight and obese adolescents in the United States has more than tripled over the past 40 years,²³ and 1 in 5 US adolescents is obese.²³ Obese teens are at higher risk for multiple chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and heart disease.²⁴ They are also more likely to be bullied and to have poor self-esteem.²⁵ Only 1 in 5 American high school students engages in 60 or more minutes of moderate-to-­vigorous physical activity on 5 or more days per week.²⁶

Regular physical activity is, of course, beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness, bone health, weight control, and improved indices of behavioral health.²⁶ Adolescents who are physically active consistently demonstrate better school attendance and grades.¹⁷ Higher levels of physical fitness are also associated with improved overall cognitive performance.²⁴

General recommendations. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that adolescents get at least 60 minutes of mostly moderate physical activity every day.²⁶ Encourage adolescents to engage in vigorous physical activity (heavy breathing, sweating) at least 3 days a week. As part of their physical activity patterns, adolescents should also engage in muscle-­strengthening and bone-strengthening activities on at least 3 days per week.

Behavioral health

As young people develop their sense of personal identity, they also strive for independence. It can be difficult, at times, to differentiate normal adolescent rebellion from true mental illness. An estimated 17% to 19% of adolescents meet criteria for mental illness, and about 7% have a severe psychiatric disorder.²⁷ Only one-third of adolescents with mental illness receive any mental health services.²⁸

Depression. The 1-year incidence of major depression in adolescents is 3% to 4%, and the lifetime prevalence of depressive symptoms is 25% in all high school students.²⁷ Risk factors include ethnic minority status, poor self-esteem, poor health, recent personal crisis, insomnia, and alcohol/­substance abuse. Depression in adolescent girls is correlated with becoming sexually active at a younger age, failure to use contraception, having an STI, and suicide attempts. Depressed boys are more likely to have unprotected intercourse and participate in physical fights.²⁹ Depressed teens have a 2- to 3-fold greater risk for behavioral disorders, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).³⁰

Continue to: Suicide

Suicide. Among individuals 15 to 29 years of age, suicide is the second leading cause of death globally, with an annual incidence of 11 to 15 per 100,000.³¹ Suicide attempts are 10 to 20 times more common than completed suicide.³¹ Males are more likely than females to die by suicide,³² and boys with a history of attempted suicide have a 30-fold increased risk of subsequent successful suicide.³¹ Hanging, drug poisoning, and firearms (particularly for males) are the most common means of suicide in adolescents. More than half of adolescents dying by suicide have coexisting depression.³¹

Adolescents prefer that providers address sexual health and are more likely to respond if asked directly about sexual behaviors.

Characteristics associated with suicidal behaviors in adolescents include impulsivity, poor problem-solving skills, and dichotomous thinking.³¹ There may be a genetic component as well. In 1 of 5 teenage suicides, a precipitating life event such as the break-up of a relationship, cyber-bullying, or peer rejection is felt to contribute.³¹

ADHD. The prevalence of ADHD is 7% to 9% in US school-aged children.³³ Boys more commonly exhibit hyperactive behaviors, while girls have more inattention. Hyperactivity often diminishes in teens, but inattention and impulsivity persist. Sequelae of ADHD include high-risk sexual behaviors, motor vehicle accidents, incarceration, and substance abuse.³⁴ Poor self-esteem, suicidal ideation, smoking, and obesity are also increased.³⁴ ADHD often persists into adulthood, with implications for social relationships and job performance.³⁴

Eating disorders. The distribution of eating disorders is now known to increasingly include more minorities and males, the latter representing 5% to 10% of cases.³⁵ Eating disorders show a strong genetic tendency and appear to be accelerated by puberty. The most common eating disorder (diagnosed in 0.8%-14% of teens) is eating disorder not otherwise specified (NOS).³⁵ Anorexia nervosa is diagnosed in 0.5% of adolescent girls, and bulimia nervosa in 1% to 2%—particularly among athletes and performers.³⁵ Unanticipated loss of weight, amenorrhea, excessive concern about weight, and deceleration in height/weight curves are potential indicators of an eating disorder. When identified, eating disorders are best managed by a trusted family physician, acting as a coordinator of a multidisciplinary team.

Sexual health

Girls begin to menstruate at an average age of 12, and it takes about 4 years for them to reach reproductive maturity.³⁶ Puberty has been documented to start at younger ages over the past 30 years, likely due to an increase in average body mass index and a decrease in levels of physical activity.³⁷ Girls with early maturation are often insecure and self-conscious, with higher levels of psychological distress.³⁸ In boys, the average age for spermarche (first ejaculation) is 13.³⁹ Boys who mature early tend to be taller, be more confident, and express a good body image.⁴⁰ Those who have early puberty are more likely to be sexually active or participate in high-risk behaviors.⁴¹

Continue to: Pregnancy and contraception

Over the past several decades, more US teens have been abstaining from sexual intercourse or have been using effective forms of birth control, particularly condoms and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).⁴² Teenage birth rates in girls ages 15 to 19 have declined significantly since the 1980s.⁴² Despite this, the teenage birth rate in the United States remains higher than in other industrialized nations, and most teen pregnancies are unintended.⁴³ Disparities in teenage birth rates also persist across racial and socioeconomic lines.⁴⁴

Restricting computer use to an area with parental supervision or installing monitoring programs does not seem to exert any protective influence on cyber-bullying or unsolicited stranger contact.

There are numerous interventions to reduce teen pregnancy, including sex education, contraceptive counseling, the use of mobile apps that track a user’s monthly fertility cycle or issue reminders to take oral contraceptives,⁴⁵ and the liberal distribution of contraceptives and condoms. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project shows that providing free (or low-cost) LARCs influences young women to choose these as their preferred contraceptive method.⁴⁶ Other programs specifically empower girls to convince partners to use condoms and to resist unwanted sexual advances or intimate partner violence.

Adolescents prefer to have their health care providers address the topic of sexual health. Teens are more likely to share information with providers if asked directly about sexual behaviors.⁴⁷TABLE 2^4,5 offers tips for anticipatory guidance and potential ways to frame questions with adolescents in this context. State laws vary with regard to the ability of minors to seek contraception, pregnancy testing, or care/screening for STIs without parental consent. Contraceptive counseling combined with effective screening decrease the incidence of STIs and pelvic inflammatory disease for sexually active teens.⁴⁸

Sexually transmitted infections

Young adolescents often have a limited ability to imagine consequences related to specific actions. In general, there is also an increased desire to engage in experimental behaviors as an expression of developing autonomy, which may expose them to STIs. About half of all STIs contracted in the United States occur in individuals 15 to 24 years of age.⁴⁹ Girls are at particular risk for the sequelae of these infections, including cervical dysplasia and infertility. Many teens erroneously believe that sexual activities other than intercourse decrease their risk of contracting an STI.⁵⁰

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common STI in adolescence.⁵¹ In most cases, HPV is transient and asymptomatic. Oncogenic strains may cause cervical cancer or cancers of the anogenital or oropharyngeal systems. Due to viral latency, it is not recommended to perform HPV typing in men or in women younger than 30 years of age; however, Pap tests are recommended every 3 years for women ages 21 to 29. Primary care providers are pivotal in the public health struggle to prevent HPV infection.

Continue to: Universal immunization of all children...

Universal immunization of all children older than 11 years of age against HPV is strongly advised as part of routine well-child care. Emphasize the proven role of HPV vaccination in preventing cervical⁵² and oropharyngeal⁵³ cancers. And be prepared to address concerns raised by parents in the context of vaccine safety and the initiation of sexual behaviors (www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/answering-questions.html).

Chlamydia is the second most common STI in the United States, usually occurring in individuals younger than 24.⁵⁴ The CDC estimates that more than 3 million new chlamydial infections occur yearly. These infections are often asymptomatic, particularly in females, but may cause urethritis, cervicitis, epididymitis, proctitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. Indolent chlamydial infection is the leading cause of tubal infertility in women.⁵⁴ Routine annual screening for chlamydia is recommended for all sexually active females ≤ 25 years (and for older women with specific risks).⁵⁵ Annual screening is also recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM).⁵⁵

Chlamydial infection may be diagnosed with first-catch urine sampling (men or women), urethral swab (men), endocervical swab (women), or self-collected vaginal swab. Nucleic acid amplification testing is the most sensitive test that is widely available.⁵⁶ First-line treatment includes either azithromycin (1 g orally, single dose) or doxycycline (100 mg orally, twice daily for 7 days).⁵⁶

Gonorrhea. In 2018, there were more than 500,000 annual cases of gonorrhea, with the majority occurring in those between 15 and 24 years of age.⁵⁷ Gonorrhea may increase rates of HIV infection transmission up to 5-fold.⁵⁷ As more adolescents practice oral sex, cases of pharyngeal gonorrhea (and oropharyngeal HPV) have increased. Symptoms of urethritis occur more frequently in men. Screening is recommended for all sexually active women younger than 25.⁵⁶ Importantly, the organism Neisseria gonorrhoeae has developed significant antibiotic resistance over the past decade. The CDC currently recommends dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea using 250 mg of intramuscular ceftriaxone and 1 g of oral azithromycin.⁵⁶

Syphilis. Rates of syphilis are increasing among individuals ages 15 to 24.⁵¹ Screening is particularly recommended for MSM and individuals infected with HIV. Benzathine penicillin G, 50,000 U/kg IM, remains the treatment of choice.⁵⁶

Continue to: HIV

HIV. Globally, HIV impacts young people disproportionately. HIV infection also facilitates infection with other STIs. In the United States, the highest burden of HIV infection is borne by young MSM, with prevalence among those 18 to 24 years old varying between 26% to 30% (black) and 3% to 5.5% (non-Hispanic white).⁵¹ The use of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has recently been approved for the prevention of HIV. PrEP reduces risk by up to 92% for MSM and transgender women.⁵⁸

Sexual identity

One in 10 high school students self-identifies as “nonheterosexual,” and 1 in 15 reports same-sex sexual contact.⁵⁹ The term LGBTQ+ includes the communities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual individuals. Developing a safe sense of sexual identity is fundamental to adolescent psychological development, and many adolescents struggle to develop a positive sexual identity. Suicide rates and self-harm behaviors among ­LGBTQ+ adolescents can be 4 times higher than among their heterosexual peers.⁶⁰ Rates of mood disorders, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors are also increased in the LGBTQ+ population.⁶¹

Suicide rates and self-harm behaviors among LGBTQ+ adolescents can be 4 times higher than among their heterosexual peers.

The LGBTQ+ community often seeks health care advice and affirmation from primary care providers. Resources to enhance this care are available at www.lgbthealtheducation.org.

Social media

Adolescents today have more media exposure than any prior generation, with smartphone and computer use increasing exponentially. Most (95%) teens have access to a smartphone,⁶² 45% describe themselves as constantly connected to the Internet, and 14% feel that social media is “addictive.”⁶² Most manage their social media portfolio on multiple sites. Patterns of adolescents' online activities show that boys prefer online gaming, while girls tend to spend more time on social networking.⁶²

Whether extensive media use is psychologically beneficial or deleterious has been widely debated. Increased time online correlates with decreased levels of physical activity.⁶³ And sleep disturbances have been associated with excessive screen time and the presence of mobile devices in the bedroom.⁶⁴ The use of social media prior to bedtime also has an adverse impact on academic performance—particularly for girls. This adverse impact on academics persists after correcting for daytime sleepiness, body mass index, and number of hours spent on homework.⁶⁴

Continue to: Due to growing concerns...

Due to growing concerns about the risks of social media in children and adolescents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has developed the Family Media Plan (www.healthychildren.org/English/media/Pages/default.aspx). Some specific questions that providers may ask are outlined in TABLE 3.⁶⁴ The Family Media Plan can provide age-specific guidelines to assist parents or caregivers in answering these questions.

Cyber-bullying. One in 3 adolescents (primarily female) has been a victim of cyber-bullying.⁶⁵ Sadly, 1 in 5 teens has received some form of electronic sexual solicitation.⁶⁶ The likelihood of unsolicited stranger contact correlates with teens’ online habits and the amount of information disclosed. Predictors include female sex, visiting chat rooms, posting photos, and disclosing personal information. Restricting computer use to an area with parental supervision or installing monitoring programs does not seem to exert any protective influence on cyber-bullying or unsolicited stranger contact.⁶⁵ While 63% of cyber-bullying victims feel upset, embarrassed, or stressed by these contacts,⁶⁶ few events are actually reported. To address this, some states have adopted laws adding cyber-bullying to school disciplinary codes.

Adolescents rarely disclose bullying to parents or other adults, fearing restriction of Internet access, and many of them think that adults may downplay the seriousness of the events.

Negative health impacts associated with cyber-bullying include anxiety, sadness, and greater difficulty in concentrating on school work.⁶⁵ Victims of bullying are more likely to have school disciplinary actions and depression and to be truant or to carry weapons to school.⁶⁶ Cyber-bullying is uniquely destructive due to its ubiquitous presence. A sense of relative anonymity online may encourage perpetrators to act more cruelly, with less concern for punishment.

Young people are also more likely to share passwords as a sign of friendship. This may result in others assuming their identity online. Adolescents rarely disclose bullying to parents or other adults, fearing restriction of Internet access, and many of them think that adults may downplay the seriousness of the events.⁶⁶

CORRESPONDENCE
Mark B. Stephens, MD, Penn State Health Medical Group, 1850 East Park Avenue, State College, PA 16803; [email protected].

Adolescents are an increasingly diverse population reflecting changes in the racial, ethnic, and geopolitical milieus of the United States. The World Health Organization classifies adolescence as ages 10 to 19 years.¹ However, given the complexity of adolescent development physically, behaviorally, emotionally, and socially, others propose that adolescence may extend to age 24.²

Recognizing the specific challenges adolescents face is key to providing comprehensive longitudinal health care. Moreover, creating an environment of trust helps to ensure open 2-way communication that can facilitate anticipatory guidance.

Our review focuses on common adolescent issues, including injury from vehicles and firearms, tobacco and substance misuse, obesity, behavioral health, sexual health, and social media use. We discuss current trends and recommend strategies to maximize health and wellness.

Start by framing the visit

Confidentiality

Laws governing confidentiality in adolescent health care vary by state. Be aware of the laws pertaining to your practice setting. In addition, health care facilities may have their own policies regarding consent and confidentiality in adolescent care. Discuss confidentiality with both an adolescent and the parent/guardian at the initial visit. And, to help avoid potential misunderstandings, let them know in advance what will (and will not) be divulged.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has developed a useful tip sheet regarding confidentiality laws (www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/healthy-foster-care-america/Documents/Confidentiality_Laws.pdf). Examples of required (conditional) disclosure include abuse and suicidal or homicidal ideations. Patients should understand that sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are reportable to public health authorities and that potentially injurious behaviors to self or others (eg, excessive drinking prior to driving) may also warrant disclosure(TABLE 1³).

Privacy and general visit structure

Create a safe atmosphere where adolescents can discuss personal issues without fear of repercussion or judgment. While parents may prefer to be present during the visit, allowing for time to visit independently with an adolescent offers the opportunity to reinforce issues of privacy and confidentiality. Also discuss your office policies regarding electronic communication, phone communication, and relaying test results.

A useful paradigm for organizing a visit for routine adolescent care is to use an expanded version of the HEADSS mnemonic (TABLE 2^4,5), which includes questions about an adolescent’s Home, Education, Activities, Drug and alcohol use, Sexual behavior, Suicidality and depression, and other topics. Other validated screening tools include RAAPS (Rapid Adolescent Prevention Screening)⁶ (www.possibilitiesforchange.com/raaps/); the Guidelines for Adolescent Preventive Services⁷; and the Bright Futures recommendations for preventive care from the American Academy of Pediatrics.⁸ Below, we consider important topics addressed with the HEADSS approach.

Continue to: Injury from vehicles and firearms

Motor vehicle accidents and firearm wounds are the 2 leading causes of adolescent injury. In 2016, of the more than 20,000 deaths in children and adolescents (ages 1-19 years), 20% were due to motor vehicle accidents (4074) and 15% were a result of firearm-­related injuries (3143). Among firearm-­related deaths, 60% were homicides, 35% were suicides, and 4% were due to accidental discharge.⁹ The rate of firearm-related deaths among American teens is 36 times greater than that of any other developed nation.⁹ Currently, 1 of every 3 US households with children younger than 18 has a firearm. Data suggest that in 43% of these households, the firearm is loaded and kept in an unlocked location.¹⁰

To aid anticipatory guidance, ask adolescents about firearm and seat belt use, drinking and driving, and suicidal thoughts (TABLE 2^4,5). Advise them to always wear seat belts whether driving or riding as a passenger. They should never drink and drive (or get in a car with someone who has been drinking). Advise parents that if firearms are present in the household, they should be kept in a secure, locked location. Weapons should be separated from ammunition and safety mechanisms should be engaged on all devices.

Tobacco and substance misuse

Tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States,¹¹ is responsible for more deaths than alcohol, motor vehicle accidents, suicides, homicides, and HIV disease combined.¹² Most tobacco-associated mortality occurs in individuals who began smoking before the age of 18.¹² Individuals who start smoking early are also more likely to continue smoking through adulthood.

Encouragingly, tobacco use has declined significantly among adolescents over the past several decades. Roughly 1 in 25 high school seniors reports daily tobacco use.¹³ Adolescent smoking behaviors are also changing dramatically with the increasing popularity of electronic cigarettes (“vaping”). Currently, more adolescents vape than smoke cigarettes.¹³ Vaping has additional health risks including toxic lung injury.

Multiple resources can help combat tobacco and nicotine use in adolescents. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians intervene through education or brief counselling to prevent initiation of tobacco use in school-aged children and adolescents.¹⁴ Ask teens about tobacco and electronic cigarette use and encourage them to quit when use is acknowledged. Other helpful office-based tools are the “Quit Line” 800-QUIT-NOW and texting “Quit” to 47848. Smokefree teen (https://teen.smokefree.gov/) is a website that reviews the risks of tobacco and nicotine use and provides age-appropriate cessation tools and tips (including a smartphone app and a live-chat feature). Other useful information is available in a report from the Surgeon General on preventing tobacco use among young adults.¹⁵

Continue to: Alcohol use

Alcohol use. Three in 5 high school students report ever having used alcohol.¹³ As with tobacco, adolescent alcohol use has declined over the past decade. However, binge drinking (≥ 5 drinks on 1 occasion for males; ≥ 4 drinks on 1 occasion for females) remains a common high-risk behavior among adolescents (particularly college students). Based on the Monitoring the Future Survey, 1 in 6 high school seniors reported binge drinking in the past 2 weeks.¹³ While historically more common among males, rates of binge drinking are now basically similar between male and female adolescents.¹³

While historically more common among males, rates of binge drinking are now basically similar between male and female adolescents.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has a screening and intervention guide specifically for adolescents.¹⁶A 2-question screening tool asking about personal use of alcohol and use of alcohol by friends is followed by a risk assessment with recommendations to advise young patients not to drink and to assist them with appropriate intervention and follow-up (https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/YouthGuide/YouthGuidePocket.pdf).

Illicit drug use. Half of adolescents report using an illicit drug by their senior year in high school.¹³ Marijuana is the most commonly used substance, and laws governing its use are rapidly changing across the United States. Marijuana is illegal in 10 states and legal in 10 states (and the District of Columbia). The remaining states have varying policies on the medical use of marijuana and the decriminalization of marijuana. In addition, cannabinoid (CBD) products are increasingly available. Frequent cannabis use in adolescence has an adverse impact on general executive function (compared with adult users) and learning.¹⁷ Marijuana may serve as a gateway drug in the abuse of other substances,¹⁸ and its use should be strongly discouraged in adolescents.

Of note, there has been a sharp rise in the illicit use of prescription drugs, particularly opioids, creating a public health emergency across the United States.¹⁹ In 2015, more than 4000 young people, ages 15 to 24, died from a drug-related overdose (> 50% of these attributable to opioids).²⁰ Adolescents with a history of substance abuse and behavioral illness are at particular risk. Many adolescents who misuse opioids and other prescription drugs obtain them from friends and relatives.²¹

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) recommends universal screening of adolescents for substance abuse. This screening should be accompanied by a brief intervention to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate substance use, or a referral to appropriate treatment sources. This process of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as part of routine health care.²²

Continue to: Obesity and physical activity

Obesity and physical activity

The percentage of overweight and obese adolescents in the United States has more than tripled over the past 40 years,²³ and 1 in 5 US adolescents is obese.²³ Obese teens are at higher risk for multiple chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and heart disease.²⁴ They are also more likely to be bullied and to have poor self-esteem.²⁵ Only 1 in 5 American high school students engages in 60 or more minutes of moderate-to-­vigorous physical activity on 5 or more days per week.²⁶

Regular physical activity is, of course, beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness, bone health, weight control, and improved indices of behavioral health.²⁶ Adolescents who are physically active consistently demonstrate better school attendance and grades.¹⁷ Higher levels of physical fitness are also associated with improved overall cognitive performance.²⁴

General recommendations. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that adolescents get at least 60 minutes of mostly moderate physical activity every day.²⁶ Encourage adolescents to engage in vigorous physical activity (heavy breathing, sweating) at least 3 days a week. As part of their physical activity patterns, adolescents should also engage in muscle-­strengthening and bone-strengthening activities on at least 3 days per week.

Behavioral health

As young people develop their sense of personal identity, they also strive for independence. It can be difficult, at times, to differentiate normal adolescent rebellion from true mental illness. An estimated 17% to 19% of adolescents meet criteria for mental illness, and about 7% have a severe psychiatric disorder.²⁷ Only one-third of adolescents with mental illness receive any mental health services.²⁸

Depression. The 1-year incidence of major depression in adolescents is 3% to 4%, and the lifetime prevalence of depressive symptoms is 25% in all high school students.²⁷ Risk factors include ethnic minority status, poor self-esteem, poor health, recent personal crisis, insomnia, and alcohol/­substance abuse. Depression in adolescent girls is correlated with becoming sexually active at a younger age, failure to use contraception, having an STI, and suicide attempts. Depressed boys are more likely to have unprotected intercourse and participate in physical fights.²⁹ Depressed teens have a 2- to 3-fold greater risk for behavioral disorders, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).³⁰

Continue to: Suicide

Suicide. Among individuals 15 to 29 years of age, suicide is the second leading cause of death globally, with an annual incidence of 11 to 15 per 100,000.³¹ Suicide attempts are 10 to 20 times more common than completed suicide.³¹ Males are more likely than females to die by suicide,³² and boys with a history of attempted suicide have a 30-fold increased risk of subsequent successful suicide.³¹ Hanging, drug poisoning, and firearms (particularly for males) are the most common means of suicide in adolescents. More than half of adolescents dying by suicide have coexisting depression.³¹

Adolescents prefer that providers address sexual health and are more likely to respond if asked directly about sexual behaviors.

Characteristics associated with suicidal behaviors in adolescents include impulsivity, poor problem-solving skills, and dichotomous thinking.³¹ There may be a genetic component as well. In 1 of 5 teenage suicides, a precipitating life event such as the break-up of a relationship, cyber-bullying, or peer rejection is felt to contribute.³¹

ADHD. The prevalence of ADHD is 7% to 9% in US school-aged children.³³ Boys more commonly exhibit hyperactive behaviors, while girls have more inattention. Hyperactivity often diminishes in teens, but inattention and impulsivity persist. Sequelae of ADHD include high-risk sexual behaviors, motor vehicle accidents, incarceration, and substance abuse.³⁴ Poor self-esteem, suicidal ideation, smoking, and obesity are also increased.³⁴ ADHD often persists into adulthood, with implications for social relationships and job performance.³⁴

Eating disorders. The distribution of eating disorders is now known to increasingly include more minorities and males, the latter representing 5% to 10% of cases.³⁵ Eating disorders show a strong genetic tendency and appear to be accelerated by puberty. The most common eating disorder (diagnosed in 0.8%-14% of teens) is eating disorder not otherwise specified (NOS).³⁵ Anorexia nervosa is diagnosed in 0.5% of adolescent girls, and bulimia nervosa in 1% to 2%—particularly among athletes and performers.³⁵ Unanticipated loss of weight, amenorrhea, excessive concern about weight, and deceleration in height/weight curves are potential indicators of an eating disorder. When identified, eating disorders are best managed by a trusted family physician, acting as a coordinator of a multidisciplinary team.

Sexual health

Girls begin to menstruate at an average age of 12, and it takes about 4 years for them to reach reproductive maturity.³⁶ Puberty has been documented to start at younger ages over the past 30 years, likely due to an increase in average body mass index and a decrease in levels of physical activity.³⁷ Girls with early maturation are often insecure and self-conscious, with higher levels of psychological distress.³⁸ In boys, the average age for spermarche (first ejaculation) is 13.³⁹ Boys who mature early tend to be taller, be more confident, and express a good body image.⁴⁰ Those who have early puberty are more likely to be sexually active or participate in high-risk behaviors.⁴¹

Continue to: Pregnancy and contraception

Over the past several decades, more US teens have been abstaining from sexual intercourse or have been using effective forms of birth control, particularly condoms and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).⁴² Teenage birth rates in girls ages 15 to 19 have declined significantly since the 1980s.⁴² Despite this, the teenage birth rate in the United States remains higher than in other industrialized nations, and most teen pregnancies are unintended.⁴³ Disparities in teenage birth rates also persist across racial and socioeconomic lines.⁴⁴

Restricting computer use to an area with parental supervision or installing monitoring programs does not seem to exert any protective influence on cyber-bullying or unsolicited stranger contact.

There are numerous interventions to reduce teen pregnancy, including sex education, contraceptive counseling, the use of mobile apps that track a user’s monthly fertility cycle or issue reminders to take oral contraceptives,⁴⁵ and the liberal distribution of contraceptives and condoms. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project shows that providing free (or low-cost) LARCs influences young women to choose these as their preferred contraceptive method.⁴⁶ Other programs specifically empower girls to convince partners to use condoms and to resist unwanted sexual advances or intimate partner violence.

Adolescents prefer to have their health care providers address the topic of sexual health. Teens are more likely to share information with providers if asked directly about sexual behaviors.⁴⁷TABLE 2^4,5 offers tips for anticipatory guidance and potential ways to frame questions with adolescents in this context. State laws vary with regard to the ability of minors to seek contraception, pregnancy testing, or care/screening for STIs without parental consent. Contraceptive counseling combined with effective screening decrease the incidence of STIs and pelvic inflammatory disease for sexually active teens.⁴⁸

Sexually transmitted infections

Young adolescents often have a limited ability to imagine consequences related to specific actions. In general, there is also an increased desire to engage in experimental behaviors as an expression of developing autonomy, which may expose them to STIs. About half of all STIs contracted in the United States occur in individuals 15 to 24 years of age.⁴⁹ Girls are at particular risk for the sequelae of these infections, including cervical dysplasia and infertility. Many teens erroneously believe that sexual activities other than intercourse decrease their risk of contracting an STI.⁵⁰

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common STI in adolescence.⁵¹ In most cases, HPV is transient and asymptomatic. Oncogenic strains may cause cervical cancer or cancers of the anogenital or oropharyngeal systems. Due to viral latency, it is not recommended to perform HPV typing in men or in women younger than 30 years of age; however, Pap tests are recommended every 3 years for women ages 21 to 29. Primary care providers are pivotal in the public health struggle to prevent HPV infection.

Continue to: Universal immunization of all children...

Universal immunization of all children older than 11 years of age against HPV is strongly advised as part of routine well-child care. Emphasize the proven role of HPV vaccination in preventing cervical⁵² and oropharyngeal⁵³ cancers. And be prepared to address concerns raised by parents in the context of vaccine safety and the initiation of sexual behaviors (www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/answering-questions.html).

Chlamydia is the second most common STI in the United States, usually occurring in individuals younger than 24.⁵⁴ The CDC estimates that more than 3 million new chlamydial infections occur yearly. These infections are often asymptomatic, particularly in females, but may cause urethritis, cervicitis, epididymitis, proctitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. Indolent chlamydial infection is the leading cause of tubal infertility in women.⁵⁴ Routine annual screening for chlamydia is recommended for all sexually active females ≤ 25 years (and for older women with specific risks).⁵⁵ Annual screening is also recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM).⁵⁵

Chlamydial infection may be diagnosed with first-catch urine sampling (men or women), urethral swab (men), endocervical swab (women), or self-collected vaginal swab. Nucleic acid amplification testing is the most sensitive test that is widely available.⁵⁶ First-line treatment includes either azithromycin (1 g orally, single dose) or doxycycline (100 mg orally, twice daily for 7 days).⁵⁶

Gonorrhea. In 2018, there were more than 500,000 annual cases of gonorrhea, with the majority occurring in those between 15 and 24 years of age.⁵⁷ Gonorrhea may increase rates of HIV infection transmission up to 5-fold.⁵⁷ As more adolescents practice oral sex, cases of pharyngeal gonorrhea (and oropharyngeal HPV) have increased. Symptoms of urethritis occur more frequently in men. Screening is recommended for all sexually active women younger than 25.⁵⁶ Importantly, the organism Neisseria gonorrhoeae has developed significant antibiotic resistance over the past decade. The CDC currently recommends dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea using 250 mg of intramuscular ceftriaxone and 1 g of oral azithromycin.⁵⁶

Syphilis. Rates of syphilis are increasing among individuals ages 15 to 24.⁵¹ Screening is particularly recommended for MSM and individuals infected with HIV. Benzathine penicillin G, 50,000 U/kg IM, remains the treatment of choice.⁵⁶

Continue to: HIV

HIV. Globally, HIV impacts young people disproportionately. HIV infection also facilitates infection with other STIs. In the United States, the highest burden of HIV infection is borne by young MSM, with prevalence among those 18 to 24 years old varying between 26% to 30% (black) and 3% to 5.5% (non-Hispanic white).⁵¹ The use of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has recently been approved for the prevention of HIV. PrEP reduces risk by up to 92% for MSM and transgender women.⁵⁸

Sexual identity

One in 10 high school students self-identifies as “nonheterosexual,” and 1 in 15 reports same-sex sexual contact.⁵⁹ The term LGBTQ+ includes the communities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual individuals. Developing a safe sense of sexual identity is fundamental to adolescent psychological development, and many adolescents struggle to develop a positive sexual identity. Suicide rates and self-harm behaviors among ­LGBTQ+ adolescents can be 4 times higher than among their heterosexual peers.⁶⁰ Rates of mood disorders, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors are also increased in the LGBTQ+ population.⁶¹

Suicide rates and self-harm behaviors among LGBTQ+ adolescents can be 4 times higher than among their heterosexual peers.

The LGBTQ+ community often seeks health care advice and affirmation from primary care providers. Resources to enhance this care are available at www.lgbthealtheducation.org.

Social media

Adolescents today have more media exposure than any prior generation, with smartphone and computer use increasing exponentially. Most (95%) teens have access to a smartphone,⁶² 45% describe themselves as constantly connected to the Internet, and 14% feel that social media is “addictive.”⁶² Most manage their social media portfolio on multiple sites. Patterns of adolescents' online activities show that boys prefer online gaming, while girls tend to spend more time on social networking.⁶²

Whether extensive media use is psychologically beneficial or deleterious has been widely debated. Increased time online correlates with decreased levels of physical activity.⁶³ And sleep disturbances have been associated with excessive screen time and the presence of mobile devices in the bedroom.⁶⁴ The use of social media prior to bedtime also has an adverse impact on academic performance—particularly for girls. This adverse impact on academics persists after correcting for daytime sleepiness, body mass index, and number of hours spent on homework.⁶⁴

Continue to: Due to growing concerns...

Due to growing concerns about the risks of social media in children and adolescents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has developed the Family Media Plan (www.healthychildren.org/English/media/Pages/default.aspx). Some specific questions that providers may ask are outlined in TABLE 3.⁶⁴ The Family Media Plan can provide age-specific guidelines to assist parents or caregivers in answering these questions.

Cyber-bullying. One in 3 adolescents (primarily female) has been a victim of cyber-bullying.⁶⁵ Sadly, 1 in 5 teens has received some form of electronic sexual solicitation.⁶⁶ The likelihood of unsolicited stranger contact correlates with teens’ online habits and the amount of information disclosed. Predictors include female sex, visiting chat rooms, posting photos, and disclosing personal information. Restricting computer use to an area with parental supervision or installing monitoring programs does not seem to exert any protective influence on cyber-bullying or unsolicited stranger contact.⁶⁵ While 63% of cyber-bullying victims feel upset, embarrassed, or stressed by these contacts,⁶⁶ few events are actually reported. To address this, some states have adopted laws adding cyber-bullying to school disciplinary codes.

Adolescents rarely disclose bullying to parents or other adults, fearing restriction of Internet access, and many of them think that adults may downplay the seriousness of the events.

Negative health impacts associated with cyber-bullying include anxiety, sadness, and greater difficulty in concentrating on school work.⁶⁵ Victims of bullying are more likely to have school disciplinary actions and depression and to be truant or to carry weapons to school.⁶⁶ Cyber-bullying is uniquely destructive due to its ubiquitous presence. A sense of relative anonymity online may encourage perpetrators to act more cruelly, with less concern for punishment.

Young people are also more likely to share passwords as a sign of friendship. This may result in others assuming their identity online. Adolescents rarely disclose bullying to parents or other adults, fearing restriction of Internet access, and many of them think that adults may downplay the seriousness of the events.⁶⁶

CORRESPONDENCE
Mark B. Stephens, MD, Penn State Health Medical Group, 1850 East Park Avenue, State College, PA 16803; [email protected].

Adolescents are an increasingly diverse population reflecting changes in the racial, ethnic, and geopolitical milieus of the United States. The World Health Organization classifies adolescence as ages 10 to 19 years.¹ However, given the complexity of adolescent development physically, behaviorally, emotionally, and socially, others propose that adolescence may extend to age 24.²

Recognizing the specific challenges adolescents face is key to providing comprehensive longitudinal health care. Moreover, creating an environment of trust helps to ensure open 2-way communication that can facilitate anticipatory guidance.

Our review focuses on common adolescent issues, including injury from vehicles and firearms, tobacco and substance misuse, obesity, behavioral health, sexual health, and social media use. We discuss current trends and recommend strategies to maximize health and wellness.

Start by framing the visit

Confidentiality

Laws governing confidentiality in adolescent health care vary by state. Be aware of the laws pertaining to your practice setting. In addition, health care facilities may have their own policies regarding consent and confidentiality in adolescent care. Discuss confidentiality with both an adolescent and the parent/guardian at the initial visit. And, to help avoid potential misunderstandings, let them know in advance what will (and will not) be divulged.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has developed a useful tip sheet regarding confidentiality laws (www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/healthy-foster-care-america/Documents/Confidentiality_Laws.pdf). Examples of required (conditional) disclosure include abuse and suicidal or homicidal ideations. Patients should understand that sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are reportable to public health authorities and that potentially injurious behaviors to self or others (eg, excessive drinking prior to driving) may also warrant disclosure(TABLE 1³).

Privacy and general visit structure

Create a safe atmosphere where adolescents can discuss personal issues without fear of repercussion or judgment. While parents may prefer to be present during the visit, allowing for time to visit independently with an adolescent offers the opportunity to reinforce issues of privacy and confidentiality. Also discuss your office policies regarding electronic communication, phone communication, and relaying test results.

A useful paradigm for organizing a visit for routine adolescent care is to use an expanded version of the HEADSS mnemonic (TABLE 2^4,5), which includes questions about an adolescent’s Home, Education, Activities, Drug and alcohol use, Sexual behavior, Suicidality and depression, and other topics. Other validated screening tools include RAAPS (Rapid Adolescent Prevention Screening)⁶ (www.possibilitiesforchange.com/raaps/); the Guidelines for Adolescent Preventive Services⁷; and the Bright Futures recommendations for preventive care from the American Academy of Pediatrics.⁸ Below, we consider important topics addressed with the HEADSS approach.

Continue to: Injury from vehicles and firearms

Motor vehicle accidents and firearm wounds are the 2 leading causes of adolescent injury. In 2016, of the more than 20,000 deaths in children and adolescents (ages 1-19 years), 20% were due to motor vehicle accidents (4074) and 15% were a result of firearm-­related injuries (3143). Among firearm-­related deaths, 60% were homicides, 35% were suicides, and 4% were due to accidental discharge.⁹ The rate of firearm-related deaths among American teens is 36 times greater than that of any other developed nation.⁹ Currently, 1 of every 3 US households with children younger than 18 has a firearm. Data suggest that in 43% of these households, the firearm is loaded and kept in an unlocked location.¹⁰

To aid anticipatory guidance, ask adolescents about firearm and seat belt use, drinking and driving, and suicidal thoughts (TABLE 2^4,5). Advise them to always wear seat belts whether driving or riding as a passenger. They should never drink and drive (or get in a car with someone who has been drinking). Advise parents that if firearms are present in the household, they should be kept in a secure, locked location. Weapons should be separated from ammunition and safety mechanisms should be engaged on all devices.

Tobacco and substance misuse

Tobacco use, the leading preventable cause of death in the United States,¹¹ is responsible for more deaths than alcohol, motor vehicle accidents, suicides, homicides, and HIV disease combined.¹² Most tobacco-associated mortality occurs in individuals who began smoking before the age of 18.¹² Individuals who start smoking early are also more likely to continue smoking through adulthood.

Encouragingly, tobacco use has declined significantly among adolescents over the past several decades. Roughly 1 in 25 high school seniors reports daily tobacco use.¹³ Adolescent smoking behaviors are also changing dramatically with the increasing popularity of electronic cigarettes (“vaping”). Currently, more adolescents vape than smoke cigarettes.¹³ Vaping has additional health risks including toxic lung injury.

Multiple resources can help combat tobacco and nicotine use in adolescents. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians intervene through education or brief counselling to prevent initiation of tobacco use in school-aged children and adolescents.¹⁴ Ask teens about tobacco and electronic cigarette use and encourage them to quit when use is acknowledged. Other helpful office-based tools are the “Quit Line” 800-QUIT-NOW and texting “Quit” to 47848. Smokefree teen (https://teen.smokefree.gov/) is a website that reviews the risks of tobacco and nicotine use and provides age-appropriate cessation tools and tips (including a smartphone app and a live-chat feature). Other useful information is available in a report from the Surgeon General on preventing tobacco use among young adults.¹⁵

Continue to: Alcohol use

Alcohol use. Three in 5 high school students report ever having used alcohol.¹³ As with tobacco, adolescent alcohol use has declined over the past decade. However, binge drinking (≥ 5 drinks on 1 occasion for males; ≥ 4 drinks on 1 occasion for females) remains a common high-risk behavior among adolescents (particularly college students). Based on the Monitoring the Future Survey, 1 in 6 high school seniors reported binge drinking in the past 2 weeks.¹³ While historically more common among males, rates of binge drinking are now basically similar between male and female adolescents.¹³

While historically more common among males, rates of binge drinking are now basically similar between male and female adolescents.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has a screening and intervention guide specifically for adolescents.¹⁶A 2-question screening tool asking about personal use of alcohol and use of alcohol by friends is followed by a risk assessment with recommendations to advise young patients not to drink and to assist them with appropriate intervention and follow-up (https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/YouthGuide/YouthGuidePocket.pdf).

Illicit drug use. Half of adolescents report using an illicit drug by their senior year in high school.¹³ Marijuana is the most commonly used substance, and laws governing its use are rapidly changing across the United States. Marijuana is illegal in 10 states and legal in 10 states (and the District of Columbia). The remaining states have varying policies on the medical use of marijuana and the decriminalization of marijuana. In addition, cannabinoid (CBD) products are increasingly available. Frequent cannabis use in adolescence has an adverse impact on general executive function (compared with adult users) and learning.¹⁷ Marijuana may serve as a gateway drug in the abuse of other substances,¹⁸ and its use should be strongly discouraged in adolescents.

Of note, there has been a sharp rise in the illicit use of prescription drugs, particularly opioids, creating a public health emergency across the United States.¹⁹ In 2015, more than 4000 young people, ages 15 to 24, died from a drug-related overdose (> 50% of these attributable to opioids).²⁰ Adolescents with a history of substance abuse and behavioral illness are at particular risk. Many adolescents who misuse opioids and other prescription drugs obtain them from friends and relatives.²¹

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) recommends universal screening of adolescents for substance abuse. This screening should be accompanied by a brief intervention to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate substance use, or a referral to appropriate treatment sources. This process of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as part of routine health care.²²

Continue to: Obesity and physical activity

Obesity and physical activity

The percentage of overweight and obese adolescents in the United States has more than tripled over the past 40 years,²³ and 1 in 5 US adolescents is obese.²³ Obese teens are at higher risk for multiple chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and heart disease.²⁴ They are also more likely to be bullied and to have poor self-esteem.²⁵ Only 1 in 5 American high school students engages in 60 or more minutes of moderate-to-­vigorous physical activity on 5 or more days per week.²⁶

Regular physical activity is, of course, beneficial for cardiorespiratory fitness, bone health, weight control, and improved indices of behavioral health.²⁶ Adolescents who are physically active consistently demonstrate better school attendance and grades.¹⁷ Higher levels of physical fitness are also associated with improved overall cognitive performance.²⁴

General recommendations. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends that adolescents get at least 60 minutes of mostly moderate physical activity every day.²⁶ Encourage adolescents to engage in vigorous physical activity (heavy breathing, sweating) at least 3 days a week. As part of their physical activity patterns, adolescents should also engage in muscle-­strengthening and bone-strengthening activities on at least 3 days per week.

Behavioral health

As young people develop their sense of personal identity, they also strive for independence. It can be difficult, at times, to differentiate normal adolescent rebellion from true mental illness. An estimated 17% to 19% of adolescents meet criteria for mental illness, and about 7% have a severe psychiatric disorder.²⁷ Only one-third of adolescents with mental illness receive any mental health services.²⁸

Depression. The 1-year incidence of major depression in adolescents is 3% to 4%, and the lifetime prevalence of depressive symptoms is 25% in all high school students.²⁷ Risk factors include ethnic minority status, poor self-esteem, poor health, recent personal crisis, insomnia, and alcohol/­substance abuse. Depression in adolescent girls is correlated with becoming sexually active at a younger age, failure to use contraception, having an STI, and suicide attempts. Depressed boys are more likely to have unprotected intercourse and participate in physical fights.²⁹ Depressed teens have a 2- to 3-fold greater risk for behavioral disorders, anxiety, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).³⁰

Continue to: Suicide

Suicide. Among individuals 15 to 29 years of age, suicide is the second leading cause of death globally, with an annual incidence of 11 to 15 per 100,000.³¹ Suicide attempts are 10 to 20 times more common than completed suicide.³¹ Males are more likely than females to die by suicide,³² and boys with a history of attempted suicide have a 30-fold increased risk of subsequent successful suicide.³¹ Hanging, drug poisoning, and firearms (particularly for males) are the most common means of suicide in adolescents. More than half of adolescents dying by suicide have coexisting depression.³¹

Adolescents prefer that providers address sexual health and are more likely to respond if asked directly about sexual behaviors.

Characteristics associated with suicidal behaviors in adolescents include impulsivity, poor problem-solving skills, and dichotomous thinking.³¹ There may be a genetic component as well. In 1 of 5 teenage suicides, a precipitating life event such as the break-up of a relationship, cyber-bullying, or peer rejection is felt to contribute.³¹

ADHD. The prevalence of ADHD is 7% to 9% in US school-aged children.³³ Boys more commonly exhibit hyperactive behaviors, while girls have more inattention. Hyperactivity often diminishes in teens, but inattention and impulsivity persist. Sequelae of ADHD include high-risk sexual behaviors, motor vehicle accidents, incarceration, and substance abuse.³⁴ Poor self-esteem, suicidal ideation, smoking, and obesity are also increased.³⁴ ADHD often persists into adulthood, with implications for social relationships and job performance.³⁴

Eating disorders. The distribution of eating disorders is now known to increasingly include more minorities and males, the latter representing 5% to 10% of cases.³⁵ Eating disorders show a strong genetic tendency and appear to be accelerated by puberty. The most common eating disorder (diagnosed in 0.8%-14% of teens) is eating disorder not otherwise specified (NOS).³⁵ Anorexia nervosa is diagnosed in 0.5% of adolescent girls, and bulimia nervosa in 1% to 2%—particularly among athletes and performers.³⁵ Unanticipated loss of weight, amenorrhea, excessive concern about weight, and deceleration in height/weight curves are potential indicators of an eating disorder. When identified, eating disorders are best managed by a trusted family physician, acting as a coordinator of a multidisciplinary team.

Sexual health

Girls begin to menstruate at an average age of 12, and it takes about 4 years for them to reach reproductive maturity.³⁶ Puberty has been documented to start at younger ages over the past 30 years, likely due to an increase in average body mass index and a decrease in levels of physical activity.³⁷ Girls with early maturation are often insecure and self-conscious, with higher levels of psychological distress.³⁸ In boys, the average age for spermarche (first ejaculation) is 13.³⁹ Boys who mature early tend to be taller, be more confident, and express a good body image.⁴⁰ Those who have early puberty are more likely to be sexually active or participate in high-risk behaviors.⁴¹

Continue to: Pregnancy and contraception

Over the past several decades, more US teens have been abstaining from sexual intercourse or have been using effective forms of birth control, particularly condoms and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).⁴² Teenage birth rates in girls ages 15 to 19 have declined significantly since the 1980s.⁴² Despite this, the teenage birth rate in the United States remains higher than in other industrialized nations, and most teen pregnancies are unintended.⁴³ Disparities in teenage birth rates also persist across racial and socioeconomic lines.⁴⁴

Restricting computer use to an area with parental supervision or installing monitoring programs does not seem to exert any protective influence on cyber-bullying or unsolicited stranger contact.

There are numerous interventions to reduce teen pregnancy, including sex education, contraceptive counseling, the use of mobile apps that track a user’s monthly fertility cycle or issue reminders to take oral contraceptives,⁴⁵ and the liberal distribution of contraceptives and condoms. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project shows that providing free (or low-cost) LARCs influences young women to choose these as their preferred contraceptive method.⁴⁶ Other programs specifically empower girls to convince partners to use condoms and to resist unwanted sexual advances or intimate partner violence.

Adolescents prefer to have their health care providers address the topic of sexual health. Teens are more likely to share information with providers if asked directly about sexual behaviors.⁴⁷TABLE 2^4,5 offers tips for anticipatory guidance and potential ways to frame questions with adolescents in this context. State laws vary with regard to the ability of minors to seek contraception, pregnancy testing, or care/screening for STIs without parental consent. Contraceptive counseling combined with effective screening decrease the incidence of STIs and pelvic inflammatory disease for sexually active teens.⁴⁸

Sexually transmitted infections

Young adolescents often have a limited ability to imagine consequences related to specific actions. In general, there is also an increased desire to engage in experimental behaviors as an expression of developing autonomy, which may expose them to STIs. About half of all STIs contracted in the United States occur in individuals 15 to 24 years of age.⁴⁹ Girls are at particular risk for the sequelae of these infections, including cervical dysplasia and infertility. Many teens erroneously believe that sexual activities other than intercourse decrease their risk of contracting an STI.⁵⁰

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common STI in adolescence.⁵¹ In most cases, HPV is transient and asymptomatic. Oncogenic strains may cause cervical cancer or cancers of the anogenital or oropharyngeal systems. Due to viral latency, it is not recommended to perform HPV typing in men or in women younger than 30 years of age; however, Pap tests are recommended every 3 years for women ages 21 to 29. Primary care providers are pivotal in the public health struggle to prevent HPV infection.

Continue to: Universal immunization of all children...

Universal immunization of all children older than 11 years of age against HPV is strongly advised as part of routine well-child care. Emphasize the proven role of HPV vaccination in preventing cervical⁵² and oropharyngeal⁵³ cancers. And be prepared to address concerns raised by parents in the context of vaccine safety and the initiation of sexual behaviors (www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/answering-questions.html).

Chlamydia is the second most common STI in the United States, usually occurring in individuals younger than 24.⁵⁴ The CDC estimates that more than 3 million new chlamydial infections occur yearly. These infections are often asymptomatic, particularly in females, but may cause urethritis, cervicitis, epididymitis, proctitis, or pelvic inflammatory disease. Indolent chlamydial infection is the leading cause of tubal infertility in women.⁵⁴ Routine annual screening for chlamydia is recommended for all sexually active females ≤ 25 years (and for older women with specific risks).⁵⁵ Annual screening is also recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM).⁵⁵

Chlamydial infection may be diagnosed with first-catch urine sampling (men or women), urethral swab (men), endocervical swab (women), or self-collected vaginal swab. Nucleic acid amplification testing is the most sensitive test that is widely available.⁵⁶ First-line treatment includes either azithromycin (1 g orally, single dose) or doxycycline (100 mg orally, twice daily for 7 days).⁵⁶

Gonorrhea. In 2018, there were more than 500,000 annual cases of gonorrhea, with the majority occurring in those between 15 and 24 years of age.⁵⁷ Gonorrhea may increase rates of HIV infection transmission up to 5-fold.⁵⁷ As more adolescents practice oral sex, cases of pharyngeal gonorrhea (and oropharyngeal HPV) have increased. Symptoms of urethritis occur more frequently in men. Screening is recommended for all sexually active women younger than 25.⁵⁶ Importantly, the organism Neisseria gonorrhoeae has developed significant antibiotic resistance over the past decade. The CDC currently recommends dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea using 250 mg of intramuscular ceftriaxone and 1 g of oral azithromycin.⁵⁶

Syphilis. Rates of syphilis are increasing among individuals ages 15 to 24.⁵¹ Screening is particularly recommended for MSM and individuals infected with HIV. Benzathine penicillin G, 50,000 U/kg IM, remains the treatment of choice.⁵⁶

Continue to: HIV

HIV. Globally, HIV impacts young people disproportionately. HIV infection also facilitates infection with other STIs. In the United States, the highest burden of HIV infection is borne by young MSM, with prevalence among those 18 to 24 years old varying between 26% to 30% (black) and 3% to 5.5% (non-Hispanic white).⁵¹ The use of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has recently been approved for the prevention of HIV. PrEP reduces risk by up to 92% for MSM and transgender women.⁵⁸

Sexual identity

One in 10 high school students self-identifies as “nonheterosexual,” and 1 in 15 reports same-sex sexual contact.⁵⁹ The term LGBTQ+ includes the communities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual individuals. Developing a safe sense of sexual identity is fundamental to adolescent psychological development, and many adolescents struggle to develop a positive sexual identity. Suicide rates and self-harm behaviors among ­LGBTQ+ adolescents can be 4 times higher than among their heterosexual peers.⁶⁰ Rates of mood disorders, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors are also increased in the LGBTQ+ population.⁶¹

Suicide rates and self-harm behaviors among LGBTQ+ adolescents can be 4 times higher than among their heterosexual peers.

The LGBTQ+ community often seeks health care advice and affirmation from primary care providers. Resources to enhance this care are available at www.lgbthealtheducation.org.

Social media

Adolescents today have more media exposure than any prior generation, with smartphone and computer use increasing exponentially. Most (95%) teens have access to a smartphone,⁶² 45% describe themselves as constantly connected to the Internet, and 14% feel that social media is “addictive.”⁶² Most manage their social media portfolio on multiple sites. Patterns of adolescents' online activities show that boys prefer online gaming, while girls tend to spend more time on social networking.⁶²

Whether extensive media use is psychologically beneficial or deleterious has been widely debated. Increased time online correlates with decreased levels of physical activity.⁶³ And sleep disturbances have been associated with excessive screen time and the presence of mobile devices in the bedroom.⁶⁴ The use of social media prior to bedtime also has an adverse impact on academic performance—particularly for girls. This adverse impact on academics persists after correcting for daytime sleepiness, body mass index, and number of hours spent on homework.⁶⁴

Continue to: Due to growing concerns...

Due to growing concerns about the risks of social media in children and adolescents, the American Academy of Pediatrics has developed the Family Media Plan (www.healthychildren.org/English/media/Pages/default.aspx). Some specific questions that providers may ask are outlined in TABLE 3.⁶⁴ The Family Media Plan can provide age-specific guidelines to assist parents or caregivers in answering these questions.

Cyber-bullying. One in 3 adolescents (primarily female) has been a victim of cyber-bullying.⁶⁵ Sadly, 1 in 5 teens has received some form of electronic sexual solicitation.⁶⁶ The likelihood of unsolicited stranger contact correlates with teens’ online habits and the amount of information disclosed. Predictors include female sex, visiting chat rooms, posting photos, and disclosing personal information. Restricting computer use to an area with parental supervision or installing monitoring programs does not seem to exert any protective influence on cyber-bullying or unsolicited stranger contact.⁶⁵ While 63% of cyber-bullying victims feel upset, embarrassed, or stressed by these contacts,⁶⁶ few events are actually reported. To address this, some states have adopted laws adding cyber-bullying to school disciplinary codes.

Adolescents rarely disclose bullying to parents or other adults, fearing restriction of Internet access, and many of them think that adults may downplay the seriousness of the events.

Negative health impacts associated with cyber-bullying include anxiety, sadness, and greater difficulty in concentrating on school work.⁶⁵ Victims of bullying are more likely to have school disciplinary actions and depression and to be truant or to carry weapons to school.⁶⁶ Cyber-bullying is uniquely destructive due to its ubiquitous presence. A sense of relative anonymity online may encourage perpetrators to act more cruelly, with less concern for punishment.

Young people are also more likely to share passwords as a sign of friendship. This may result in others assuming their identity online. Adolescents rarely disclose bullying to parents or other adults, fearing restriction of Internet access, and many of them think that adults may downplay the seriousness of the events.⁶⁶

CORRESPONDENCE
Mark B. Stephens, MD, Penn State Health Medical Group, 1850 East Park Avenue, State College, PA 16803; [email protected].

A 49-year-old woman with a history of end-stage renal disease, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and congestive heart failure visited the hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation secondary to missed dialysis appointments. On admission, her provider noted that she had tender, pruritic lesions on the extensor surface of her arms. She said they had appeared 2 to 3 months after she started dialysis. She had attempted to control the pain and pruritus with over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone and oral diphenhydramine but nothing provided relief. She was recommended for follow-up at the hospital for further examination and biopsy of one of her lesions.

At this follow-up visit, the patient noted that the lesions had spread to her left knee. Multiple firm discrete papules and nodules, with central hyperkeratotic plugs, were noted along the extensor surfaces of her forearms, left extensor knee, and around her ankles (FIGURES 1A and 1B). Some of the lesions were tender. Examination of the rest of her skin was normal. A punch biopsy was obtained.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Kyrle disease

The patient’s end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes—along with findings from the physical examination—led us to suspect Kyrle disease. The punch biopsy, as well as the characteristic keratotic plugs (FIGURE 2) within epidermal invagination that was bordered by hyperkeratotic epidermis, confirmed the diagnosis.

The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.

Kyrle disease (also known as hyperkeratosis follicularis et follicularis in cutem penetrans) is a rare skin condition. It is 1 of 4 skin conditions that are classified as perforating skin disorders; the other 3 are elastosis perforans serpiginosa, reactive perforating collagenosis, and perforating folliculitis (TABLE^1,2).³ Perforating skin disorders share the common characteristic of transepidermal elimination of material from the upper dermis.⁴ These disorders are typically classified based on the nature of the eliminated material and the type of epidermal disruption.⁵

There are 2 forms of Kyrle disease: an inherited form often seen in childhood that is not associated with systemic disease and an acquired form that occurs in adulthood, most commonly among women ages 35 to 70 years who have systemic disease.^3,4,6 The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.^7,8

Characteristic findings include discrete pruritic, dry papules and nodules with central keratotic plugs that are occasionally tender. These can manifest over the extensor surface of the extremities, trunk, face, and scalp.^4,7,9 Lesions most commonly manifest on the extensor surfaces of the lower extremities.

Other conditions that feature pruritic lesions

In addition to the other perforating skin disorders described in the TABLE,^1,2 the differential for Kyrle disease includes the following:

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disorder in which the manifestation of extremely pruritic nodules leads to vigorous scratching and secondary infections. These lesions typically have a grouped and symmetrically distributed appearance. They often appear on extensor surfaces of upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ PN has no known etiology, but like Kyrle disease, is associated with renal failure. Biopsy can help to distinguish PN from Kyrle disease.

Continue to: Hypertrophic lichen planus

Hypertrophic lichen planus is a pruritic skin disorder characterized by the “6 Ps”: planar, purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules, and plaques. These lesions can mimic the early stages of Kyrle disease.¹¹ However, in the later stages of Kyrle disease, discrete papules with hyperkeratotic plugs develop, whereas large plaques will be seen with lichen planus.

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is an extremely common, yet benign, disorder in which hair follicles become keratinized.¹² KP can feature rough papules that are often described as “goosebumps” or having a sandpaper–like appearance. These papules often affect the upper arms. KP usually manifests in adolescents or young adults and tends to improve with age.¹² The lesions are typically smaller than those seen in Kyrle disease and are asymptomatic. In addition, KP is not associated with systemic disease.

Target symptoms and any underlying conditions

In patients who have an acquired form of the disease, symptoms may improve by treating the underlying condition. For instance, better control of type 2 diabetes may improve symptoms. In patients with end-stage renal disease, a renal transplant can bring complete resolution.¹³

For patients whose Kyrle disease is inherited or whose underlying condition is not easily treated, there are a number of treatment options to consider. First-line treatment includes topical keratolytics (salicylic acid and urea), topical retinoids, and ultraviolet light therapy.^5,7 Systemic retinoids, topical steroids, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, CO₂ laser surgery, and surgical excision have also been used with some success.^7,14 Oral histamines and emollients also may help to relieve the pruritus. Lesions often recur upon discontinuation of therapy.

Our patient was referred to Dermatology for ultraviolet light therapy. She was also treated with topical 12% ammonium lactate twice daily. Within a few months, she reported improvement of her symptoms.

A 49-year-old woman with a history of end-stage renal disease, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and congestive heart failure visited the hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation secondary to missed dialysis appointments. On admission, her provider noted that she had tender, pruritic lesions on the extensor surface of her arms. She said they had appeared 2 to 3 months after she started dialysis. She had attempted to control the pain and pruritus with over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone and oral diphenhydramine but nothing provided relief. She was recommended for follow-up at the hospital for further examination and biopsy of one of her lesions.

At this follow-up visit, the patient noted that the lesions had spread to her left knee. Multiple firm discrete papules and nodules, with central hyperkeratotic plugs, were noted along the extensor surfaces of her forearms, left extensor knee, and around her ankles (FIGURES 1A and 1B). Some of the lesions were tender. Examination of the rest of her skin was normal. A punch biopsy was obtained.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Kyrle disease

The patient’s end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes—along with findings from the physical examination—led us to suspect Kyrle disease. The punch biopsy, as well as the characteristic keratotic plugs (FIGURE 2) within epidermal invagination that was bordered by hyperkeratotic epidermis, confirmed the diagnosis.

The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.

Kyrle disease (also known as hyperkeratosis follicularis et follicularis in cutem penetrans) is a rare skin condition. It is 1 of 4 skin conditions that are classified as perforating skin disorders; the other 3 are elastosis perforans serpiginosa, reactive perforating collagenosis, and perforating folliculitis (TABLE^1,2).³ Perforating skin disorders share the common characteristic of transepidermal elimination of material from the upper dermis.⁴ These disorders are typically classified based on the nature of the eliminated material and the type of epidermal disruption.⁵

There are 2 forms of Kyrle disease: an inherited form often seen in childhood that is not associated with systemic disease and an acquired form that occurs in adulthood, most commonly among women ages 35 to 70 years who have systemic disease.^3,4,6 The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.^7,8

Characteristic findings include discrete pruritic, dry papules and nodules with central keratotic plugs that are occasionally tender. These can manifest over the extensor surface of the extremities, trunk, face, and scalp.^4,7,9 Lesions most commonly manifest on the extensor surfaces of the lower extremities.

Other conditions that feature pruritic lesions

In addition to the other perforating skin disorders described in the TABLE,^1,2 the differential for Kyrle disease includes the following:

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disorder in which the manifestation of extremely pruritic nodules leads to vigorous scratching and secondary infections. These lesions typically have a grouped and symmetrically distributed appearance. They often appear on extensor surfaces of upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ PN has no known etiology, but like Kyrle disease, is associated with renal failure. Biopsy can help to distinguish PN from Kyrle disease.

Continue to: Hypertrophic lichen planus

Hypertrophic lichen planus is a pruritic skin disorder characterized by the “6 Ps”: planar, purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules, and plaques. These lesions can mimic the early stages of Kyrle disease.¹¹ However, in the later stages of Kyrle disease, discrete papules with hyperkeratotic plugs develop, whereas large plaques will be seen with lichen planus.

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is an extremely common, yet benign, disorder in which hair follicles become keratinized.¹² KP can feature rough papules that are often described as “goosebumps” or having a sandpaper–like appearance. These papules often affect the upper arms. KP usually manifests in adolescents or young adults and tends to improve with age.¹² The lesions are typically smaller than those seen in Kyrle disease and are asymptomatic. In addition, KP is not associated with systemic disease.

Target symptoms and any underlying conditions

In patients who have an acquired form of the disease, symptoms may improve by treating the underlying condition. For instance, better control of type 2 diabetes may improve symptoms. In patients with end-stage renal disease, a renal transplant can bring complete resolution.¹³

For patients whose Kyrle disease is inherited or whose underlying condition is not easily treated, there are a number of treatment options to consider. First-line treatment includes topical keratolytics (salicylic acid and urea), topical retinoids, and ultraviolet light therapy.^5,7 Systemic retinoids, topical steroids, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, CO₂ laser surgery, and surgical excision have also been used with some success.^7,14 Oral histamines and emollients also may help to relieve the pruritus. Lesions often recur upon discontinuation of therapy.

Our patient was referred to Dermatology for ultraviolet light therapy. She was also treated with topical 12% ammonium lactate twice daily. Within a few months, she reported improvement of her symptoms.

A 49-year-old woman with a history of end-stage renal disease, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, and congestive heart failure visited the hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation secondary to missed dialysis appointments. On admission, her provider noted that she had tender, pruritic lesions on the extensor surface of her arms. She said they had appeared 2 to 3 months after she started dialysis. She had attempted to control the pain and pruritus with over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone and oral diphenhydramine but nothing provided relief. She was recommended for follow-up at the hospital for further examination and biopsy of one of her lesions.

At this follow-up visit, the patient noted that the lesions had spread to her left knee. Multiple firm discrete papules and nodules, with central hyperkeratotic plugs, were noted along the extensor surfaces of her forearms, left extensor knee, and around her ankles (FIGURES 1A and 1B). Some of the lesions were tender. Examination of the rest of her skin was normal. A punch biopsy was obtained.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Diagnosis: Kyrle disease

The patient’s end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes—along with findings from the physical examination—led us to suspect Kyrle disease. The punch biopsy, as well as the characteristic keratotic plugs (FIGURE 2) within epidermal invagination that was bordered by hyperkeratotic epidermis, confirmed the diagnosis.

The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.

Kyrle disease (also known as hyperkeratosis follicularis et follicularis in cutem penetrans) is a rare skin condition. It is 1 of 4 skin conditions that are classified as perforating skin disorders; the other 3 are elastosis perforans serpiginosa, reactive perforating collagenosis, and perforating folliculitis (TABLE^1,2).³ Perforating skin disorders share the common characteristic of transepidermal elimination of material from the upper dermis.⁴ These disorders are typically classified based on the nature of the eliminated material and the type of epidermal disruption.⁵

There are 2 forms of Kyrle disease: an inherited form often seen in childhood that is not associated with systemic disease and an acquired form that occurs in adulthood, most commonly among women ages 35 to 70 years who have systemic disease.^3,4,6 The acquired form of Kyrle disease is associated with diabetes and renal failure, but there is a lack of data on its pathogenesis.^7,8

Characteristic findings include discrete pruritic, dry papules and nodules with central keratotic plugs that are occasionally tender. These can manifest over the extensor surface of the extremities, trunk, face, and scalp.^4,7,9 Lesions most commonly manifest on the extensor surfaces of the lower extremities.

Other conditions that feature pruritic lesions

In addition to the other perforating skin disorders described in the TABLE,^1,2 the differential for Kyrle disease includes the following:

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disorder in which the manifestation of extremely pruritic nodules leads to vigorous scratching and secondary infections. These lesions typically have a grouped and symmetrically distributed appearance. They often appear on extensor surfaces of upper and lower extremities.¹⁰ PN has no known etiology, but like Kyrle disease, is associated with renal failure. Biopsy can help to distinguish PN from Kyrle disease.

Continue to: Hypertrophic lichen planus

Hypertrophic lichen planus is a pruritic skin disorder characterized by the “6 Ps”: planar, purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules, and plaques. These lesions can mimic the early stages of Kyrle disease.¹¹ However, in the later stages of Kyrle disease, discrete papules with hyperkeratotic plugs develop, whereas large plaques will be seen with lichen planus.

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is an extremely common, yet benign, disorder in which hair follicles become keratinized.¹² KP can feature rough papules that are often described as “goosebumps” or having a sandpaper–like appearance. These papules often affect the upper arms. KP usually manifests in adolescents or young adults and tends to improve with age.¹² The lesions are typically smaller than those seen in Kyrle disease and are asymptomatic. In addition, KP is not associated with systemic disease.

Target symptoms and any underlying conditions

In patients who have an acquired form of the disease, symptoms may improve by treating the underlying condition. For instance, better control of type 2 diabetes may improve symptoms. In patients with end-stage renal disease, a renal transplant can bring complete resolution.¹³

For patients whose Kyrle disease is inherited or whose underlying condition is not easily treated, there are a number of treatment options to consider. First-line treatment includes topical keratolytics (salicylic acid and urea), topical retinoids, and ultraviolet light therapy.^5,7 Systemic retinoids, topical steroids, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, CO₂ laser surgery, and surgical excision have also been used with some success.^7,14 Oral histamines and emollients also may help to relieve the pruritus. Lesions often recur upon discontinuation of therapy.

Our patient was referred to Dermatology for ultraviolet light therapy. She was also treated with topical 12% ammonium lactate twice daily. Within a few months, she reported improvement of her symptoms.