Diabetes

Harvard biologist Doug Melton, PhD, is exploring the use of stem cells to create replacement beta cells that produce insulin, according to Time magazine.

In 2014, he co-founded Semma Therapeutics to develop the technology, which was acquired by Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

“The company has created a small, implantable device that holds millions of replacement beta cells, letting glucose and insulin through but keeping immune cells out. ‘If it works in people as well as it does in animals, it’s possible that people will not be diabetic,’ said Dr. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. ‘They will eat and drink and play like those of us who are not.’”

Reference

Steinberg D. 12 innovations that will change health care and medicine in the 2020s. Time. 2019 Oct 25. https://time.com/5710295/top-health-innovations/ Accessed Dec 5, 2019.

Harvard biologist Doug Melton, PhD, is exploring the use of stem cells to create replacement beta cells that produce insulin, according to Time magazine.

In 2014, he co-founded Semma Therapeutics to develop the technology, which was acquired by Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

“The company has created a small, implantable device that holds millions of replacement beta cells, letting glucose and insulin through but keeping immune cells out. ‘If it works in people as well as it does in animals, it’s possible that people will not be diabetic,’ said Dr. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. ‘They will eat and drink and play like those of us who are not.’”

Reference

Steinberg D. 12 innovations that will change health care and medicine in the 2020s. Time. 2019 Oct 25. https://time.com/5710295/top-health-innovations/ Accessed Dec 5, 2019.

Harvard biologist Doug Melton, PhD, is exploring the use of stem cells to create replacement beta cells that produce insulin, according to Time magazine.

In 2014, he co-founded Semma Therapeutics to develop the technology, which was acquired by Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

“The company has created a small, implantable device that holds millions of replacement beta cells, letting glucose and insulin through but keeping immune cells out. ‘If it works in people as well as it does in animals, it’s possible that people will not be diabetic,’ said Dr. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. ‘They will eat and drink and play like those of us who are not.’”

Reference

Steinberg D. 12 innovations that will change health care and medicine in the 2020s. Time. 2019 Oct 25. https://time.com/5710295/top-health-innovations/ Accessed Dec 5, 2019.

Goldenseal, a natural botanical product, may interfere with intestinal absorption of metformin, potentially compromising blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to investigators.

The study, which tested for interactions between goldenseal and several drugs in healthy volunteers, reveals that current models for predicting transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions may be insufficient to screen commonly used dietary supplements, reported lead investigator James T. Nguyen, PharmD, a PhD candidate at Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues.

“Supplements containing goldenseal ... a perennial herb native to North America, have consistently ranked among the top 20 highest selling natural products during the last decade,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics . “As more patients continue to seek goldenseal and other natural products to self-treat their medical conditions, there is an increasing need to characterize their safety profiles, especially when co-consumed with prescribed medications, which can lead to adverse natural product-drug interactions.”

Previous clinical studies have shown that goldenseal inhibits cytochrome P450, with one study showing a roughly 40% increase in systemic midazolam exposure via CYP3A inhibition, “suggesting goldenseal could have prolonged inhibitory effects in vivo similar to grapefruit juice,” the investigators wrote.

Clinical and in vitro results for goldenseal-transporter interactions have been mixed, the investigators noted, specifically for P-glycoprotein, while other transporters remain clinically untested.

“Likewise, the effects of [goldenseal alkaloids], all of which are time-dependent inhibitors of CYP3A and/or CYP2D6, have not been tested on transporter function,” the investigators wrote.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators first performed in vitro transporter inhibition assays and in vitro–in vivo predictions involving goldenseal, plus the alkaloids berberine, (−)-beta-hydrastine, and hydrastinine.

This analysis revealed that a number of transporters were sensitive to inhibition by goldenseal and its alkaloids.

“Using current [Food and Drug Administration]–recommended basic models, the goldenseal product was predicted to inhibit the intestinal efflux transporter BCRP [breast cancer resistance protein] and the hepatic uptake transporters OATP1B1 and OATP1B3,” the investigators wrote, which suggested that goldenseal would increase the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of rosuvastatin acid and lactone.

This prediction was clinically tested in 16 healthy volunteers: 8 men and 8 nonpregnant women.

In the baseline portion of the study, each participant received an oral transporter probe cocktail consisting of 10 mg rosuvastatin (OATP1B1/3 and BCRP), 50 mg metformin (OCT1/2 and MATE1/2-K), 1 mg furosemide (OAT1/3), and 2.5 mg midazolam (CYP3A; positive control). Plasma and urine samples were collected before and after the cocktail, with urine collected up to 24 hours later, and plasma collected up to 96 hours later.

Following a minimum 9-day washout period, the same cohort received 1 gram of goldenseal every 8 hours for 5 days. On the day 6, the drug cocktail was given again, followed by two additional doses of goldenseal at 4-hour intervals. At the same time points used in the baseline protocol, urine and plasma samples were collected.

Plasma concentration vs. time profiles revealed that the model-based prediction was false, in that the presence of goldenseal did not alter the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin acid and lactone. The investigators suggested that this could be due to incomplete dissolution of goldenseal in the intestinal lumen, and/or low enterocyte concentrations of goldenseal stemming from “low permeability or extensive enterocyte metabolism or efflux.”

In contrast, and unpredicted by the basic model, goldenseal had a significant impact on apical efflux transporters MATE1 and MATE2-K, which mediate renal excretion of metformin. In consequence, AUC from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration of metformin were reduced by 23% and 27%, respectively.

“These observations, coupled with no change in half-life, suggested that goldenseal decreased metformin oral bioavailability by altering intestinal permeability, transport, and/or other processes involved in metformin absorption,” the investigators wrote.

According to principal author Mary Paine, PhD, of Washington State University, Spokane, this finding may have clinically significant implications for patients currently taking metformin for type 2 diabetes.

Goldenseal, a natural botanical product, may interfere with intestinal absorption of metformin, potentially compromising blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to investigators.

The study, which tested for interactions between goldenseal and several drugs in healthy volunteers, reveals that current models for predicting transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions may be insufficient to screen commonly used dietary supplements, reported lead investigator James T. Nguyen, PharmD, a PhD candidate at Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues.

“Supplements containing goldenseal ... a perennial herb native to North America, have consistently ranked among the top 20 highest selling natural products during the last decade,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics . “As more patients continue to seek goldenseal and other natural products to self-treat their medical conditions, there is an increasing need to characterize their safety profiles, especially when co-consumed with prescribed medications, which can lead to adverse natural product-drug interactions.”

Previous clinical studies have shown that goldenseal inhibits cytochrome P450, with one study showing a roughly 40% increase in systemic midazolam exposure via CYP3A inhibition, “suggesting goldenseal could have prolonged inhibitory effects in vivo similar to grapefruit juice,” the investigators wrote.

Clinical and in vitro results for goldenseal-transporter interactions have been mixed, the investigators noted, specifically for P-glycoprotein, while other transporters remain clinically untested.

“Likewise, the effects of [goldenseal alkaloids], all of which are time-dependent inhibitors of CYP3A and/or CYP2D6, have not been tested on transporter function,” the investigators wrote.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators first performed in vitro transporter inhibition assays and in vitro–in vivo predictions involving goldenseal, plus the alkaloids berberine, (−)-beta-hydrastine, and hydrastinine.

This analysis revealed that a number of transporters were sensitive to inhibition by goldenseal and its alkaloids.

“Using current [Food and Drug Administration]–recommended basic models, the goldenseal product was predicted to inhibit the intestinal efflux transporter BCRP [breast cancer resistance protein] and the hepatic uptake transporters OATP1B1 and OATP1B3,” the investigators wrote, which suggested that goldenseal would increase the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of rosuvastatin acid and lactone.

This prediction was clinically tested in 16 healthy volunteers: 8 men and 8 nonpregnant women.

In the baseline portion of the study, each participant received an oral transporter probe cocktail consisting of 10 mg rosuvastatin (OATP1B1/3 and BCRP), 50 mg metformin (OCT1/2 and MATE1/2-K), 1 mg furosemide (OAT1/3), and 2.5 mg midazolam (CYP3A; positive control). Plasma and urine samples were collected before and after the cocktail, with urine collected up to 24 hours later, and plasma collected up to 96 hours later.

Following a minimum 9-day washout period, the same cohort received 1 gram of goldenseal every 8 hours for 5 days. On the day 6, the drug cocktail was given again, followed by two additional doses of goldenseal at 4-hour intervals. At the same time points used in the baseline protocol, urine and plasma samples were collected.

Plasma concentration vs. time profiles revealed that the model-based prediction was false, in that the presence of goldenseal did not alter the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin acid and lactone. The investigators suggested that this could be due to incomplete dissolution of goldenseal in the intestinal lumen, and/or low enterocyte concentrations of goldenseal stemming from “low permeability or extensive enterocyte metabolism or efflux.”

In contrast, and unpredicted by the basic model, goldenseal had a significant impact on apical efflux transporters MATE1 and MATE2-K, which mediate renal excretion of metformin. In consequence, AUC from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration of metformin were reduced by 23% and 27%, respectively.

“These observations, coupled with no change in half-life, suggested that goldenseal decreased metformin oral bioavailability by altering intestinal permeability, transport, and/or other processes involved in metformin absorption,” the investigators wrote.

According to principal author Mary Paine, PhD, of Washington State University, Spokane, this finding may have clinically significant implications for patients currently taking metformin for type 2 diabetes.

Goldenseal, a natural botanical product, may interfere with intestinal absorption of metformin, potentially compromising blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to investigators.

The study, which tested for interactions between goldenseal and several drugs in healthy volunteers, reveals that current models for predicting transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions may be insufficient to screen commonly used dietary supplements, reported lead investigator James T. Nguyen, PharmD, a PhD candidate at Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues.

“Supplements containing goldenseal ... a perennial herb native to North America, have consistently ranked among the top 20 highest selling natural products during the last decade,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics . “As more patients continue to seek goldenseal and other natural products to self-treat their medical conditions, there is an increasing need to characterize their safety profiles, especially when co-consumed with prescribed medications, which can lead to adverse natural product-drug interactions.”

Previous clinical studies have shown that goldenseal inhibits cytochrome P450, with one study showing a roughly 40% increase in systemic midazolam exposure via CYP3A inhibition, “suggesting goldenseal could have prolonged inhibitory effects in vivo similar to grapefruit juice,” the investigators wrote.

Clinical and in vitro results for goldenseal-transporter interactions have been mixed, the investigators noted, specifically for P-glycoprotein, while other transporters remain clinically untested.

“Likewise, the effects of [goldenseal alkaloids], all of which are time-dependent inhibitors of CYP3A and/or CYP2D6, have not been tested on transporter function,” the investigators wrote.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators first performed in vitro transporter inhibition assays and in vitro–in vivo predictions involving goldenseal, plus the alkaloids berberine, (−)-beta-hydrastine, and hydrastinine.

This analysis revealed that a number of transporters were sensitive to inhibition by goldenseal and its alkaloids.

“Using current [Food and Drug Administration]–recommended basic models, the goldenseal product was predicted to inhibit the intestinal efflux transporter BCRP [breast cancer resistance protein] and the hepatic uptake transporters OATP1B1 and OATP1B3,” the investigators wrote, which suggested that goldenseal would increase the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of rosuvastatin acid and lactone.

This prediction was clinically tested in 16 healthy volunteers: 8 men and 8 nonpregnant women.

In the baseline portion of the study, each participant received an oral transporter probe cocktail consisting of 10 mg rosuvastatin (OATP1B1/3 and BCRP), 50 mg metformin (OCT1/2 and MATE1/2-K), 1 mg furosemide (OAT1/3), and 2.5 mg midazolam (CYP3A; positive control). Plasma and urine samples were collected before and after the cocktail, with urine collected up to 24 hours later, and plasma collected up to 96 hours later.

Following a minimum 9-day washout period, the same cohort received 1 gram of goldenseal every 8 hours for 5 days. On the day 6, the drug cocktail was given again, followed by two additional doses of goldenseal at 4-hour intervals. At the same time points used in the baseline protocol, urine and plasma samples were collected.

Plasma concentration vs. time profiles revealed that the model-based prediction was false, in that the presence of goldenseal did not alter the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin acid and lactone. The investigators suggested that this could be due to incomplete dissolution of goldenseal in the intestinal lumen, and/or low enterocyte concentrations of goldenseal stemming from “low permeability or extensive enterocyte metabolism or efflux.”

In contrast, and unpredicted by the basic model, goldenseal had a significant impact on apical efflux transporters MATE1 and MATE2-K, which mediate renal excretion of metformin. In consequence, AUC from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration of metformin were reduced by 23% and 27%, respectively.

“These observations, coupled with no change in half-life, suggested that goldenseal decreased metformin oral bioavailability by altering intestinal permeability, transport, and/or other processes involved in metformin absorption,” the investigators wrote.

According to principal author Mary Paine, PhD, of Washington State University, Spokane, this finding may have clinically significant implications for patients currently taking metformin for type 2 diabetes.

Prescriptions for opioids as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) outnumbered those for other medications between 2014 and 2018, despite the fact that the former is not recommended, new research indicates.

“We know that for any kind of chronic pain, opioids are not ideal. They’re not very effective for chronic pain in general, and they’re definitely not safe,” senior author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

That’s true even for severe DPN pain or painful exacerbations, she added.

“There’s a myth that opioids are the strongest pain meds possible ... For painful neuropathic pain, duloxetine [Cymbalta], pregabalin [Lyrica], and gabapentin [Neurontin] are the most effective pain medications based on multiple studies and extensive experience using them,” she explained. “But I think the public perception is that opioids are the strongest. When a patient comes with severe pain, I think there’s that kind of gut feeling that if the pain is severe, I need to give opioids.”

What’s more, she noted, “evidence is emerging for other harms, not only the potential for dependency and potential overdose, but also the potential for opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Opioids themselves can cause chronic pain. When we think about using opioids for chronic pain, we are really shooting ourselves in the foot. We’re going to harm patients.”

The American Diabetes Association DPN guidelines essentially say as much, advising opioids only as a tertiary option for refractory pain, she observed.

The new findings, from a retrospective study of Mayo Clinic electronic health data, were published online in JAMA Network Open by Jungwei Fan, PhD, also of Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.


 

Are fewer patients with DPN receiving any treatment now?

The data also reveal that, while opioid prescribing dropped over the study period, there wasn’t a comparable rise in prescriptions of recommended pain medications, suggesting that recent efforts to minimize opioid prescribing may have resulted in less overall treatment of significant pain. (The study had to be stopped in 2018 when Mayo switched to a new electronic health record system, Dr. McCoy explained.)

“The proportion of opioids among new prescriptions has been decreasing. I’m hopeful that the rates are even lower now than they were 2 years ago. What was concerning to me was the proportion of people receiving treatment overall had gone down,” Dr. McCoy noted.

“So, while it’s great that opioids aren’t being used, it’s doubtful that people with DPN are any less symptomatic. So I worry that there’s a proportion of patients who have pain who aren’t getting the treatment they need just because we don’t want to give them opioids. There are other options,” Dr. McCoy said, including nonpharmacologic approaches.
 

Opioids dominated in new-onset DPN prescribing during 2014-2018

The study involved 3,495 adults with newly diagnosed DPN from all three Mayo Clinic locations in Rochester, Minn.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Jacksonville, Fla. during the period 2014-2018. Of those, 40.2% (1,406) were prescribed a new pain medication after diagnosis. However, that proportion dropped from 45.6% in 2014 to 35.2% in 2018.

The odds of initiating any treatment were significantly greater among patients with depression (odds ratio, 1.61), arthritis (OR, 1.21), and back pain (OR, 1.34), but decreased over time among all patients.

Among those receiving drug treatment, opioids were prescribed to 43.8%, whereas guideline-recommended medications (gabapentin, pregabalin, and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors including duloxetine) were prescribed to 42.9%.

Another 20.6% received medications deemed “acceptable” for treating neuropathic pain, including topical analgesics, tricyclic antidepressants, and other anticonvulsants.

Males were significantly more likely than females to receive opioids (OR, 1.26), while individuals diagnosed with comorbid fibromyalgia were less likely (OR, 0.67). Those with comorbid arthritis were less likely to receive recommended DPN medications (OR, 0.76).

Use of opioids was 29% less likely in 2018, compared with 2014, although this difference did not achieve significance. Similarly, use of recommended medications was 25% more likely in 2018, compared with 2014, also not a significant difference.
 

Dr. McCoy offers clinical pearls for treating pain in DPN

Clinically, Dr. McCoy said that she individualizes treatment for painful DPN.

“I tend to use duloxetine if the patient also has a mood disorder including depression or anxiety, because it can also help with that. Gabapentin can also be helpful for radiculopathy or for chronic low-back pain. It can even help with degenerative joint disease like arthritis of the knees. So, you maximize benefit if you use one drug to treat multiple things.”

All three recommended medications are generic now, although pregabalin still tends to be more expensive, she noted. Gabapentin can cause drowsiness, which makes it ideal for a patient with insomnia but much less so for a long-haul truck driver. Duloxetine doesn’t cause sleepiness. Pregabalin can, but less so than gabapentin.  

“I think that’s why it’s so important to talk to your patient and ask how the neuropathy is affecting them. What other comorbidities do they have? What is their life like? I think you have to figure out what drug works for each individual person.”

Importantly, she advised, if one of the three doesn’t work, stop it and try another. “It doesn’t mean that none of these meds work. All three should be tried to see if they give relief.”

Nonpharmacologic measures such as cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, or physical therapy may help some patients as well.

Supplements such as vitamin B₁₂ – which can also help with metformin-induced B₁₂ deficiency – or alpha-lipoic acid may also be worth a try as long as the patient is made aware of potential risks, she noted.

Dr. McCoy hopes to repeat this study using national data. “I don’t think this is isolated to Mayo ... I think it affects all practices,” she said.

Since the study, “we [Mayo Clinic] have implemented practice changes to limit use of opioids for chronic pain ... so I hope it’s getting better. It’s important to be aware of our patterns in prescribing.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the AARP Quality Measure Innovation program through a collaboration with OptumLabs and the Mayo Clinic’s Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery.
 

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

Prescriptions for opioids as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) outnumbered those for other medications between 2014 and 2018, despite the fact that the former is not recommended, new research indicates.

“We know that for any kind of chronic pain, opioids are not ideal. They’re not very effective for chronic pain in general, and they’re definitely not safe,” senior author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

That’s true even for severe DPN pain or painful exacerbations, she added.

“There’s a myth that opioids are the strongest pain meds possible ... For painful neuropathic pain, duloxetine [Cymbalta], pregabalin [Lyrica], and gabapentin [Neurontin] are the most effective pain medications based on multiple studies and extensive experience using them,” she explained. “But I think the public perception is that opioids are the strongest. When a patient comes with severe pain, I think there’s that kind of gut feeling that if the pain is severe, I need to give opioids.”

What’s more, she noted, “evidence is emerging for other harms, not only the potential for dependency and potential overdose, but also the potential for opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Opioids themselves can cause chronic pain. When we think about using opioids for chronic pain, we are really shooting ourselves in the foot. We’re going to harm patients.”

The American Diabetes Association DPN guidelines essentially say as much, advising opioids only as a tertiary option for refractory pain, she observed.

The new findings, from a retrospective study of Mayo Clinic electronic health data, were published online in JAMA Network Open by Jungwei Fan, PhD, also of Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.


 

Are fewer patients with DPN receiving any treatment now?

The data also reveal that, while opioid prescribing dropped over the study period, there wasn’t a comparable rise in prescriptions of recommended pain medications, suggesting that recent efforts to minimize opioid prescribing may have resulted in less overall treatment of significant pain. (The study had to be stopped in 2018 when Mayo switched to a new electronic health record system, Dr. McCoy explained.)

“The proportion of opioids among new prescriptions has been decreasing. I’m hopeful that the rates are even lower now than they were 2 years ago. What was concerning to me was the proportion of people receiving treatment overall had gone down,” Dr. McCoy noted.

“So, while it’s great that opioids aren’t being used, it’s doubtful that people with DPN are any less symptomatic. So I worry that there’s a proportion of patients who have pain who aren’t getting the treatment they need just because we don’t want to give them opioids. There are other options,” Dr. McCoy said, including nonpharmacologic approaches.
 

Opioids dominated in new-onset DPN prescribing during 2014-2018

The study involved 3,495 adults with newly diagnosed DPN from all three Mayo Clinic locations in Rochester, Minn.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Jacksonville, Fla. during the period 2014-2018. Of those, 40.2% (1,406) were prescribed a new pain medication after diagnosis. However, that proportion dropped from 45.6% in 2014 to 35.2% in 2018.

The odds of initiating any treatment were significantly greater among patients with depression (odds ratio, 1.61), arthritis (OR, 1.21), and back pain (OR, 1.34), but decreased over time among all patients.

Among those receiving drug treatment, opioids were prescribed to 43.8%, whereas guideline-recommended medications (gabapentin, pregabalin, and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors including duloxetine) were prescribed to 42.9%.

Another 20.6% received medications deemed “acceptable” for treating neuropathic pain, including topical analgesics, tricyclic antidepressants, and other anticonvulsants.

Males were significantly more likely than females to receive opioids (OR, 1.26), while individuals diagnosed with comorbid fibromyalgia were less likely (OR, 0.67). Those with comorbid arthritis were less likely to receive recommended DPN medications (OR, 0.76).

Use of opioids was 29% less likely in 2018, compared with 2014, although this difference did not achieve significance. Similarly, use of recommended medications was 25% more likely in 2018, compared with 2014, also not a significant difference.
 

Dr. McCoy offers clinical pearls for treating pain in DPN

Clinically, Dr. McCoy said that she individualizes treatment for painful DPN.

“I tend to use duloxetine if the patient also has a mood disorder including depression or anxiety, because it can also help with that. Gabapentin can also be helpful for radiculopathy or for chronic low-back pain. It can even help with degenerative joint disease like arthritis of the knees. So, you maximize benefit if you use one drug to treat multiple things.”

All three recommended medications are generic now, although pregabalin still tends to be more expensive, she noted. Gabapentin can cause drowsiness, which makes it ideal for a patient with insomnia but much less so for a long-haul truck driver. Duloxetine doesn’t cause sleepiness. Pregabalin can, but less so than gabapentin.  

“I think that’s why it’s so important to talk to your patient and ask how the neuropathy is affecting them. What other comorbidities do they have? What is their life like? I think you have to figure out what drug works for each individual person.”

Importantly, she advised, if one of the three doesn’t work, stop it and try another. “It doesn’t mean that none of these meds work. All three should be tried to see if they give relief.”

Nonpharmacologic measures such as cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, or physical therapy may help some patients as well.

Supplements such as vitamin B₁₂ – which can also help with metformin-induced B₁₂ deficiency – or alpha-lipoic acid may also be worth a try as long as the patient is made aware of potential risks, she noted.

Dr. McCoy hopes to repeat this study using national data. “I don’t think this is isolated to Mayo ... I think it affects all practices,” she said.

Since the study, “we [Mayo Clinic] have implemented practice changes to limit use of opioids for chronic pain ... so I hope it’s getting better. It’s important to be aware of our patterns in prescribing.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the AARP Quality Measure Innovation program through a collaboration with OptumLabs and the Mayo Clinic’s Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery.
 

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

Prescriptions for opioids as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) outnumbered those for other medications between 2014 and 2018, despite the fact that the former is not recommended, new research indicates.

“We know that for any kind of chronic pain, opioids are not ideal. They’re not very effective for chronic pain in general, and they’re definitely not safe,” senior author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

That’s true even for severe DPN pain or painful exacerbations, she added.

“There’s a myth that opioids are the strongest pain meds possible ... For painful neuropathic pain, duloxetine [Cymbalta], pregabalin [Lyrica], and gabapentin [Neurontin] are the most effective pain medications based on multiple studies and extensive experience using them,” she explained. “But I think the public perception is that opioids are the strongest. When a patient comes with severe pain, I think there’s that kind of gut feeling that if the pain is severe, I need to give opioids.”

What’s more, she noted, “evidence is emerging for other harms, not only the potential for dependency and potential overdose, but also the potential for opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Opioids themselves can cause chronic pain. When we think about using opioids for chronic pain, we are really shooting ourselves in the foot. We’re going to harm patients.”

The American Diabetes Association DPN guidelines essentially say as much, advising opioids only as a tertiary option for refractory pain, she observed.

The new findings, from a retrospective study of Mayo Clinic electronic health data, were published online in JAMA Network Open by Jungwei Fan, PhD, also of Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.


 

Are fewer patients with DPN receiving any treatment now?

The data also reveal that, while opioid prescribing dropped over the study period, there wasn’t a comparable rise in prescriptions of recommended pain medications, suggesting that recent efforts to minimize opioid prescribing may have resulted in less overall treatment of significant pain. (The study had to be stopped in 2018 when Mayo switched to a new electronic health record system, Dr. McCoy explained.)

“The proportion of opioids among new prescriptions has been decreasing. I’m hopeful that the rates are even lower now than they were 2 years ago. What was concerning to me was the proportion of people receiving treatment overall had gone down,” Dr. McCoy noted.

“So, while it’s great that opioids aren’t being used, it’s doubtful that people with DPN are any less symptomatic. So I worry that there’s a proportion of patients who have pain who aren’t getting the treatment they need just because we don’t want to give them opioids. There are other options,” Dr. McCoy said, including nonpharmacologic approaches.
 

Opioids dominated in new-onset DPN prescribing during 2014-2018

The study involved 3,495 adults with newly diagnosed DPN from all three Mayo Clinic locations in Rochester, Minn.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Jacksonville, Fla. during the period 2014-2018. Of those, 40.2% (1,406) were prescribed a new pain medication after diagnosis. However, that proportion dropped from 45.6% in 2014 to 35.2% in 2018.

The odds of initiating any treatment were significantly greater among patients with depression (odds ratio, 1.61), arthritis (OR, 1.21), and back pain (OR, 1.34), but decreased over time among all patients.

Among those receiving drug treatment, opioids were prescribed to 43.8%, whereas guideline-recommended medications (gabapentin, pregabalin, and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors including duloxetine) were prescribed to 42.9%.

Another 20.6% received medications deemed “acceptable” for treating neuropathic pain, including topical analgesics, tricyclic antidepressants, and other anticonvulsants.

Males were significantly more likely than females to receive opioids (OR, 1.26), while individuals diagnosed with comorbid fibromyalgia were less likely (OR, 0.67). Those with comorbid arthritis were less likely to receive recommended DPN medications (OR, 0.76).

Use of opioids was 29% less likely in 2018, compared with 2014, although this difference did not achieve significance. Similarly, use of recommended medications was 25% more likely in 2018, compared with 2014, also not a significant difference.
 

Dr. McCoy offers clinical pearls for treating pain in DPN

Clinically, Dr. McCoy said that she individualizes treatment for painful DPN.

“I tend to use duloxetine if the patient also has a mood disorder including depression or anxiety, because it can also help with that. Gabapentin can also be helpful for radiculopathy or for chronic low-back pain. It can even help with degenerative joint disease like arthritis of the knees. So, you maximize benefit if you use one drug to treat multiple things.”

All three recommended medications are generic now, although pregabalin still tends to be more expensive, she noted. Gabapentin can cause drowsiness, which makes it ideal for a patient with insomnia but much less so for a long-haul truck driver. Duloxetine doesn’t cause sleepiness. Pregabalin can, but less so than gabapentin.  

“I think that’s why it’s so important to talk to your patient and ask how the neuropathy is affecting them. What other comorbidities do they have? What is their life like? I think you have to figure out what drug works for each individual person.”

Importantly, she advised, if one of the three doesn’t work, stop it and try another. “It doesn’t mean that none of these meds work. All three should be tried to see if they give relief.”

Nonpharmacologic measures such as cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, or physical therapy may help some patients as well.

Supplements such as vitamin B₁₂ – which can also help with metformin-induced B₁₂ deficiency – or alpha-lipoic acid may also be worth a try as long as the patient is made aware of potential risks, she noted.

Dr. McCoy hopes to repeat this study using national data. “I don’t think this is isolated to Mayo ... I think it affects all practices,” she said.

Since the study, “we [Mayo Clinic] have implemented practice changes to limit use of opioids for chronic pain ... so I hope it’s getting better. It’s important to be aware of our patterns in prescribing.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the AARP Quality Measure Innovation program through a collaboration with OptumLabs and the Mayo Clinic’s Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery.
 

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

A commercial for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Dexcom G6 shown during the Super Bowl has provoked strong reactions in the diabetes community, both positive and negative.

The 30-second ad, which aired between the first two quarters of the American football game yesterday, features singer-songwriter-actor Nick Jonas, who has type 1 diabetes. During the ad, Mr. Jonas asks – with so much technology available today, including drones that deliver packages and self-driving cars – why are people with diabetes still pricking their fingers to test their blood sugar?

Mr. Jonas goes on to demonstrate the Dexcom G6 smartphone glucose app as it displays three different glucose levels including two trending upward, explaining: “It shows your glucose right in your phone, and where it’s heading, without fingersticks. Finally, technology that makes it easier to manage our diabetes.”

Diabetes type or insulin treatment are not mentioned in the ad, despite the fact that most insurance plans typically only cover CGMs for people with type 1 diabetes and sometimes for those with type 2 diabetes who take multiple daily insulin doses (given the risk for hypoglycemia).
 

Ad prompts mixed reaction on social media

Reactions rolled in on Twitter after the ad debuted Feb. 2, and then again after it aired during the game.

Some people who have type 1 diabetes themselves or have children with the disease who use the product were thrilled.

“Thanks to @NickJonas for his advocacy on T1. My 11-year old has been on the Dexcom for 3 weeks. For a newly diagnosed kid, it removes a lot of anxiety (and for his parents, too!) Plus, he is thrilled his meter has a Super Bowl commercial!” tweeted @KatisJewell.

Another positive tweet, from @rturnerroy, read: “@nickjonas Thank you for bringing representation to #type1diabetes. And hey #Dexcom, you’re the best.”

But many others were critical, both of Jonas and Dexcom. @hb_herrick tweeted: “Diabetes awareness is fantastic. Dexcom being able to afford Nick Jonas for a #SuperBowl commercial is not. This is a health care product. Make it more affordable for those who need it.”

Another Twitter user, @universeofdust, tweeted: “Feeling ambivalent about the #Dexcom ad tbh. I love the awareness & representation. But also not a big fan of dexcom spending $5.5 mill+ to make the CGM seem like this ~cool & trendy~ thing when many type 1s can’t afford their insulin, let alone a CGM.”

And @andricheli wrote: “Only people lucky enough to have excellent insurance and be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs have access. Many others do not.”

And in another tweet the same user said, “The #Dexcom is an amazing device. It’s literally lifesaving and life extending. But it’s also very expensive and not available to everyone. Maybe instead of spending $5 mil on a Super Bowl ad, @dexcom should spend that on getting Dex into the handle of people who need it.”

Others, including @1hitwonderdate, criticized Mr. Jonas directly, asking him: “As someone who has struggled with diabetes and is trying to support themselves along with millions of others, why not use this platform to help those who can’t afford their supplies or are rationing them?!”


 

Dexcom and Jonas’ organization respond

This news organization reached out to both Dexcom and to Beyond Type 1, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Mr. Jonas, for comment. Both emailed responses.

Regarding the intended audience for the ad, Dexcom acknowledged that it hoped to reach a much wider group than just people with type 1 diabetes or even just insulin users.

“We believe our CGM technology has the ability to empower any person with diabetes and significantly improve their treatment and quality of life, whether they are using insulin or not,” the company said, adding that the ad was also aimed at “loved ones, caregivers, and even health care professionals who need to know about this technology.”

According to Dexcom, the G6 is covered by 99% of commercial insurance in the United States, in addition to Medicare, and by Medicaid in more than 40 states. Over 70% of Dexcom patients with pharmacy coverage in the United States pay under $60 per month for CGM, and a third pay $0 out-of-pocket.

“That said, we know there’s more to be done to improve access, and we are working with several partners to broaden access to Dexcom CGM, especially for people with type 2 diabetes not on mealtime insulin,” the company noted.

Beyond Type 1 responded to the criticisms about Mr. Jonas personally, noting that the celebrity is, in fact, heavily involved in advocacy.

“Nick was involved in the launch of GetInsulin.org this past October,” they said. “GetInsulin.org is a tool created by Beyond Type 1 to connect people with diabetes in the United States to the insulin access and affordability options that match their unique circumstances. ... Beyond Type 1 will continue driving awareness of short-term solutions related to insulin access and affordability while fighting for systemic change.”

The organization “is also advocating for systemic payment policies that will make devices less expensive and avoid the same pitfalls (and rising prices) as the drug pricing system in the U.S.”

Mr. Jonas himself appears aware of the concerns.

Is 2021’s most expensive Super Bowl ad justified?

Meanwhile, in a piece in Esquire, Dave Holmes, who has type 1 diabetes, weighs up the pros and cons of the ad.

He writes: “While Jonas makes it look fun and easy to use a Dexcom G6 – a program to just get with like you would a drone or LED eyelashes – the process of acquiring one is complicated and often very expensive, even for people with good insurance. Which makes the year’s most expensive ad buy, for a product that only a small percentage of the U.S. population needs, confusing to me and others.”

Mr. Holmes also spoke with Craig Stubing, founder of the Beta Cell Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to educate and empower those with type 1 diabetes.

“Spending all this money on an ad, when people’s lives are at stake. I don’t know if offensive is the right word, but it seems out of touch with the reality that their patients are facing,” Mr. Stubing told Mr. Holmes.

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

A commercial for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Dexcom G6 shown during the Super Bowl has provoked strong reactions in the diabetes community, both positive and negative.

The 30-second ad, which aired between the first two quarters of the American football game yesterday, features singer-songwriter-actor Nick Jonas, who has type 1 diabetes. During the ad, Mr. Jonas asks – with so much technology available today, including drones that deliver packages and self-driving cars – why are people with diabetes still pricking their fingers to test their blood sugar?

Mr. Jonas goes on to demonstrate the Dexcom G6 smartphone glucose app as it displays three different glucose levels including two trending upward, explaining: “It shows your glucose right in your phone, and where it’s heading, without fingersticks. Finally, technology that makes it easier to manage our diabetes.”

Diabetes type or insulin treatment are not mentioned in the ad, despite the fact that most insurance plans typically only cover CGMs for people with type 1 diabetes and sometimes for those with type 2 diabetes who take multiple daily insulin doses (given the risk for hypoglycemia).
 

Ad prompts mixed reaction on social media

Reactions rolled in on Twitter after the ad debuted Feb. 2, and then again after it aired during the game.

Some people who have type 1 diabetes themselves or have children with the disease who use the product were thrilled.

“Thanks to @NickJonas for his advocacy on T1. My 11-year old has been on the Dexcom for 3 weeks. For a newly diagnosed kid, it removes a lot of anxiety (and for his parents, too!) Plus, he is thrilled his meter has a Super Bowl commercial!” tweeted @KatisJewell.

Another positive tweet, from @rturnerroy, read: “@nickjonas Thank you for bringing representation to #type1diabetes. And hey #Dexcom, you’re the best.”

But many others were critical, both of Jonas and Dexcom. @hb_herrick tweeted: “Diabetes awareness is fantastic. Dexcom being able to afford Nick Jonas for a #SuperBowl commercial is not. This is a health care product. Make it more affordable for those who need it.”

Another Twitter user, @universeofdust, tweeted: “Feeling ambivalent about the #Dexcom ad tbh. I love the awareness & representation. But also not a big fan of dexcom spending $5.5 mill+ to make the CGM seem like this ~cool & trendy~ thing when many type 1s can’t afford their insulin, let alone a CGM.”

And @andricheli wrote: “Only people lucky enough to have excellent insurance and be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs have access. Many others do not.”

And in another tweet the same user said, “The #Dexcom is an amazing device. It’s literally lifesaving and life extending. But it’s also very expensive and not available to everyone. Maybe instead of spending $5 mil on a Super Bowl ad, @dexcom should spend that on getting Dex into the handle of people who need it.”

Others, including @1hitwonderdate, criticized Mr. Jonas directly, asking him: “As someone who has struggled with diabetes and is trying to support themselves along with millions of others, why not use this platform to help those who can’t afford their supplies or are rationing them?!”


 

Dexcom and Jonas’ organization respond

This news organization reached out to both Dexcom and to Beyond Type 1, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Mr. Jonas, for comment. Both emailed responses.

Regarding the intended audience for the ad, Dexcom acknowledged that it hoped to reach a much wider group than just people with type 1 diabetes or even just insulin users.

“We believe our CGM technology has the ability to empower any person with diabetes and significantly improve their treatment and quality of life, whether they are using insulin or not,” the company said, adding that the ad was also aimed at “loved ones, caregivers, and even health care professionals who need to know about this technology.”

According to Dexcom, the G6 is covered by 99% of commercial insurance in the United States, in addition to Medicare, and by Medicaid in more than 40 states. Over 70% of Dexcom patients with pharmacy coverage in the United States pay under $60 per month for CGM, and a third pay $0 out-of-pocket.

“That said, we know there’s more to be done to improve access, and we are working with several partners to broaden access to Dexcom CGM, especially for people with type 2 diabetes not on mealtime insulin,” the company noted.

Beyond Type 1 responded to the criticisms about Mr. Jonas personally, noting that the celebrity is, in fact, heavily involved in advocacy.

“Nick was involved in the launch of GetInsulin.org this past October,” they said. “GetInsulin.org is a tool created by Beyond Type 1 to connect people with diabetes in the United States to the insulin access and affordability options that match their unique circumstances. ... Beyond Type 1 will continue driving awareness of short-term solutions related to insulin access and affordability while fighting for systemic change.”

The organization “is also advocating for systemic payment policies that will make devices less expensive and avoid the same pitfalls (and rising prices) as the drug pricing system in the U.S.”

Mr. Jonas himself appears aware of the concerns.

Is 2021’s most expensive Super Bowl ad justified?

Meanwhile, in a piece in Esquire, Dave Holmes, who has type 1 diabetes, weighs up the pros and cons of the ad.

He writes: “While Jonas makes it look fun and easy to use a Dexcom G6 – a program to just get with like you would a drone or LED eyelashes – the process of acquiring one is complicated and often very expensive, even for people with good insurance. Which makes the year’s most expensive ad buy, for a product that only a small percentage of the U.S. population needs, confusing to me and others.”

Mr. Holmes also spoke with Craig Stubing, founder of the Beta Cell Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to educate and empower those with type 1 diabetes.

“Spending all this money on an ad, when people’s lives are at stake. I don’t know if offensive is the right word, but it seems out of touch with the reality that their patients are facing,” Mr. Stubing told Mr. Holmes.

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

A commercial for the continuous glucose monitor (CGM) Dexcom G6 shown during the Super Bowl has provoked strong reactions in the diabetes community, both positive and negative.

The 30-second ad, which aired between the first two quarters of the American football game yesterday, features singer-songwriter-actor Nick Jonas, who has type 1 diabetes. During the ad, Mr. Jonas asks – with so much technology available today, including drones that deliver packages and self-driving cars – why are people with diabetes still pricking their fingers to test their blood sugar?

Mr. Jonas goes on to demonstrate the Dexcom G6 smartphone glucose app as it displays three different glucose levels including two trending upward, explaining: “It shows your glucose right in your phone, and where it’s heading, without fingersticks. Finally, technology that makes it easier to manage our diabetes.”

Diabetes type or insulin treatment are not mentioned in the ad, despite the fact that most insurance plans typically only cover CGMs for people with type 1 diabetes and sometimes for those with type 2 diabetes who take multiple daily insulin doses (given the risk for hypoglycemia).
 

Ad prompts mixed reaction on social media

Reactions rolled in on Twitter after the ad debuted Feb. 2, and then again after it aired during the game.

Some people who have type 1 diabetes themselves or have children with the disease who use the product were thrilled.

“Thanks to @NickJonas for his advocacy on T1. My 11-year old has been on the Dexcom for 3 weeks. For a newly diagnosed kid, it removes a lot of anxiety (and for his parents, too!) Plus, he is thrilled his meter has a Super Bowl commercial!” tweeted @KatisJewell.

Another positive tweet, from @rturnerroy, read: “@nickjonas Thank you for bringing representation to #type1diabetes. And hey #Dexcom, you’re the best.”

But many others were critical, both of Jonas and Dexcom. @hb_herrick tweeted: “Diabetes awareness is fantastic. Dexcom being able to afford Nick Jonas for a #SuperBowl commercial is not. This is a health care product. Make it more affordable for those who need it.”

Another Twitter user, @universeofdust, tweeted: “Feeling ambivalent about the #Dexcom ad tbh. I love the awareness & representation. But also not a big fan of dexcom spending $5.5 mill+ to make the CGM seem like this ~cool & trendy~ thing when many type 1s can’t afford their insulin, let alone a CGM.”

And @andricheli wrote: “Only people lucky enough to have excellent insurance and be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs have access. Many others do not.”

And in another tweet the same user said, “The #Dexcom is an amazing device. It’s literally lifesaving and life extending. But it’s also very expensive and not available to everyone. Maybe instead of spending $5 mil on a Super Bowl ad, @dexcom should spend that on getting Dex into the handle of people who need it.”

Others, including @1hitwonderdate, criticized Mr. Jonas directly, asking him: “As someone who has struggled with diabetes and is trying to support themselves along with millions of others, why not use this platform to help those who can’t afford their supplies or are rationing them?!”


 

Dexcom and Jonas’ organization respond

This news organization reached out to both Dexcom and to Beyond Type 1, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Mr. Jonas, for comment. Both emailed responses.

Regarding the intended audience for the ad, Dexcom acknowledged that it hoped to reach a much wider group than just people with type 1 diabetes or even just insulin users.

“We believe our CGM technology has the ability to empower any person with diabetes and significantly improve their treatment and quality of life, whether they are using insulin or not,” the company said, adding that the ad was also aimed at “loved ones, caregivers, and even health care professionals who need to know about this technology.”

According to Dexcom, the G6 is covered by 99% of commercial insurance in the United States, in addition to Medicare, and by Medicaid in more than 40 states. Over 70% of Dexcom patients with pharmacy coverage in the United States pay under $60 per month for CGM, and a third pay $0 out-of-pocket.

“That said, we know there’s more to be done to improve access, and we are working with several partners to broaden access to Dexcom CGM, especially for people with type 2 diabetes not on mealtime insulin,” the company noted.

Beyond Type 1 responded to the criticisms about Mr. Jonas personally, noting that the celebrity is, in fact, heavily involved in advocacy.

“Nick was involved in the launch of GetInsulin.org this past October,” they said. “GetInsulin.org is a tool created by Beyond Type 1 to connect people with diabetes in the United States to the insulin access and affordability options that match their unique circumstances. ... Beyond Type 1 will continue driving awareness of short-term solutions related to insulin access and affordability while fighting for systemic change.”

The organization “is also advocating for systemic payment policies that will make devices less expensive and avoid the same pitfalls (and rising prices) as the drug pricing system in the U.S.”

Mr. Jonas himself appears aware of the concerns.

Is 2021’s most expensive Super Bowl ad justified?

Meanwhile, in a piece in Esquire, Dave Holmes, who has type 1 diabetes, weighs up the pros and cons of the ad.

He writes: “While Jonas makes it look fun and easy to use a Dexcom G6 – a program to just get with like you would a drone or LED eyelashes – the process of acquiring one is complicated and often very expensive, even for people with good insurance. Which makes the year’s most expensive ad buy, for a product that only a small percentage of the U.S. population needs, confusing to me and others.”

Mr. Holmes also spoke with Craig Stubing, founder of the Beta Cell Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to educate and empower those with type 1 diabetes.

“Spending all this money on an ad, when people’s lives are at stake. I don’t know if offensive is the right word, but it seems out of touch with the reality that their patients are facing,” Mr. Stubing told Mr. Holmes.

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

The phase 3a STEP 1 trial that investigated the use of semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, for weight loss is aptly named, some say.

“In sum, we have a long way to go to control the obesity epidemic ... but on the face of it, the STEP 1 trial (like its name) is a good beginning,” wrote coeditorialists Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine, also in Boston.

The trial findings by John P.H. Wilding, DM, University of Liverpool (England), and colleagues and an accompanying editorial were published online Feb. 10, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The results are encouraging, with significantly more patients in the semaglutide group having clinically important weight loss,” Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen stressed.

However, they also cautioned that “despite the positive results of this trial, the present study has some important limitations” and “there are concerns, including adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal – nausea, sometimes vomiting, and diarrhea) related primarily to the class of the agent.”

Two U.K. experts drew similar takeaways, speaking to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“This was a well-designed study with unequivocal findings,” which showed that semaglutide “is indeed likely to be a game-changer in the fight against obesity,” according to Baptiste Leurent, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

However, if the drug is approved at this dose for this use, patients would need close monitoring for gastrointestinal disorders, and “we also need to better understand what is happening once the treatment is stopped, and whether it could be taken for a shorter period of time.”

Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, MD, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge (England), pointed out that “GLP-1 is made by cells in the intestine and levels increase in the blood after a meal, providing some of the signal to the brain that tells us we are ‘full,’ ” so GLP-1 agonists have been studied as appetite suppressants, in addition to their approved use to treat type 2 diabetes.

Only about 4.5% of participants in STEP 1 stopped taking semaglutide because of gastrointestinal issues, he noted, although more participants in that group reported problems with gallstones, which can follow rapid weight loss.

And “unlike some previous appetite suppressant drugs which caused significant psychological and psychiatric side effects, there is no evidence that semaglutide has any adverse effects of that nature,” Dr. O’Rahilly noted.

In sum, he said, “this is the start of a new era for obesity drug development with the future direction being to achieve levels of weight loss comparable to semaglutide, while having fewer side effects.”
 

‘Pressing need’ to address obesity; semaglutide filed for obesity

There is a “pressing need” to address the worldwide increase in obesity and weight-related coexisting conditions, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted.

Sustained long-term weight loss with diet and exercise is challenging; behavioral weight-loss strategies “fail more often than not,” bariatric surgery is invasive and often followed by eventual weight regain, they wrote.

In addition, said Dr. Wilding and colleagues, the “use of available [weight-loss] medications remains limited by modest efficacy, safety concerns, and cost.”

Subcutaneous semaglutide, approved for treating type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic) in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week, induced weight loss at higher doses. The current study is part of the global Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity program of four trials (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) that aimed to test the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for weight loss.

Topline results from STEP 1 were presented June 4, 2020.

And as reported earlier, results from STEP 3 – a 68-week trial of semaglutide versus placebo in 611 participants who all received very intensive diet and exercise counseling – were presented at the virtual ObesityWeek 2020 meeting.

The four trials of semaglutide for weight loss have been completed and the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 4, 2020 (with a decision expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
 

Most patients had 5% weight loss with semaglutide

The STEP 1 trial enrolled 1,961 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m² or at least 27 with at least one weight-related coexisting condition, but without type 2 diabetes, at 129 sites in 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Participants were a mean age of 47 and three-quarters were women. Most participants were White (76%), followed by Asian (13%), Black or African American (6%), or other (5%).

On average, they had a BMI of 38 and weighed 105 kg. Three-quarters had one or more coexisting conditions.

Participants were randomized to receive semaglutide (1,306 patients) or placebo (655 patients), added to lifestyle intervention.

Everyone received 17 monthly individual counseling sessions during which they learned about adhering to a diet with a 500-calorie/day deficit, were encouraged to build up to walking 150 minutes each week, and recorded their daily diet and exercise (in a diary or using an app).

Semaglutide was administered with a prefilled pen injector at a dose of 0.25 mg/week for the first 4 weeks, escalated to 2.4 mg/week by week 16 (or lower if the patient had unacceptable side effects).

At 68 weeks, participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group had greater mean weight loss (14.9% vs. 2.4%, or 15.3 kg vs. 2.6 kg).

Participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group were much more likely to have lost at least 5% of their initial weight (86% vs. 31.5%) or at least 10% of their initial weight (69.1% vs. 12.0%), or at least 15% of their initial weight (50.5% vs. 4.9%; P < .001 for all three comparisons).

About 80% of participants adhered to the study treatment. A third of participants in the semaglutide group who completed the study lost at least 20% of their initial weight, which approaches the 20%-30% reported weight loss 1-3 years after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Participants in the semaglutide group also had greater improvements in waist circumference and levels of hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), and fasting lipids, as well as in physical function scores on SF-36 and IWQOL-Lite-CT questionnaires.

In their editorial, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted that “daily oral semaglutide [already approved in 7-mg and 14-mg doses for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as Rybelsus] might be more appealing to many people,” as a weight-loss medication than a once-weekly subcutaneous dose. Semaglutide is the first GLP-1 agonist available as an oral agent.

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial (with expected completion in 2023) will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years.
 

GI disorders and ‘important limitations’

More participants in the semaglutide than the placebo group reported gastrointestinal disorders (typically nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation; 74.2% vs. 47.9%), which were mostly transient and mild to moderate in severity, but also led to more treatment discontinuation (7.0% vs. 3.1%).

More patients in the semaglutide versus placebo group had a gall bladder–related disorder (2.6% vs. 1.2%, mostly cholelithiasis) and mild acute pancreatitis (3 vs. 0 participants), but there were no between-group differences in neoplasms.

Dr. Wilding and colleagues acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the fact that it enrolled mainly women, mainly non-White participants, was relatively short, and excluded patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mean placebo-corrected weight loss with 2.4 mg/weekly subcutaneous semaglutide was greater than with 3.0 mg once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – the only GLP-1 agonist approved for weight management – in the 56-week SCALE trial (12.4% vs. 4.5%); however, the two studies had different populations.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor and Dr. Rosen is an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Ingelfinger, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Leurent have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Rahilly has a current research collaboration with Novo Nordisk scientists in an unrelated area and has been a consultant for the company.

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

The phase 3a STEP 1 trial that investigated the use of semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, for weight loss is aptly named, some say.

“In sum, we have a long way to go to control the obesity epidemic ... but on the face of it, the STEP 1 trial (like its name) is a good beginning,” wrote coeditorialists Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine, also in Boston.

The trial findings by John P.H. Wilding, DM, University of Liverpool (England), and colleagues and an accompanying editorial were published online Feb. 10, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The results are encouraging, with significantly more patients in the semaglutide group having clinically important weight loss,” Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen stressed.

However, they also cautioned that “despite the positive results of this trial, the present study has some important limitations” and “there are concerns, including adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal – nausea, sometimes vomiting, and diarrhea) related primarily to the class of the agent.”

Two U.K. experts drew similar takeaways, speaking to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“This was a well-designed study with unequivocal findings,” which showed that semaglutide “is indeed likely to be a game-changer in the fight against obesity,” according to Baptiste Leurent, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

However, if the drug is approved at this dose for this use, patients would need close monitoring for gastrointestinal disorders, and “we also need to better understand what is happening once the treatment is stopped, and whether it could be taken for a shorter period of time.”

Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, MD, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge (England), pointed out that “GLP-1 is made by cells in the intestine and levels increase in the blood after a meal, providing some of the signal to the brain that tells us we are ‘full,’ ” so GLP-1 agonists have been studied as appetite suppressants, in addition to their approved use to treat type 2 diabetes.

Only about 4.5% of participants in STEP 1 stopped taking semaglutide because of gastrointestinal issues, he noted, although more participants in that group reported problems with gallstones, which can follow rapid weight loss.

And “unlike some previous appetite suppressant drugs which caused significant psychological and psychiatric side effects, there is no evidence that semaglutide has any adverse effects of that nature,” Dr. O’Rahilly noted.

In sum, he said, “this is the start of a new era for obesity drug development with the future direction being to achieve levels of weight loss comparable to semaglutide, while having fewer side effects.”
 

‘Pressing need’ to address obesity; semaglutide filed for obesity

There is a “pressing need” to address the worldwide increase in obesity and weight-related coexisting conditions, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted.

Sustained long-term weight loss with diet and exercise is challenging; behavioral weight-loss strategies “fail more often than not,” bariatric surgery is invasive and often followed by eventual weight regain, they wrote.

In addition, said Dr. Wilding and colleagues, the “use of available [weight-loss] medications remains limited by modest efficacy, safety concerns, and cost.”

Subcutaneous semaglutide, approved for treating type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic) in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week, induced weight loss at higher doses. The current study is part of the global Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity program of four trials (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) that aimed to test the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for weight loss.

Topline results from STEP 1 were presented June 4, 2020.

And as reported earlier, results from STEP 3 – a 68-week trial of semaglutide versus placebo in 611 participants who all received very intensive diet and exercise counseling – were presented at the virtual ObesityWeek 2020 meeting.

The four trials of semaglutide for weight loss have been completed and the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 4, 2020 (with a decision expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
 

Most patients had 5% weight loss with semaglutide

The STEP 1 trial enrolled 1,961 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m² or at least 27 with at least one weight-related coexisting condition, but without type 2 diabetes, at 129 sites in 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Participants were a mean age of 47 and three-quarters were women. Most participants were White (76%), followed by Asian (13%), Black or African American (6%), or other (5%).

On average, they had a BMI of 38 and weighed 105 kg. Three-quarters had one or more coexisting conditions.

Participants were randomized to receive semaglutide (1,306 patients) or placebo (655 patients), added to lifestyle intervention.

Everyone received 17 monthly individual counseling sessions during which they learned about adhering to a diet with a 500-calorie/day deficit, were encouraged to build up to walking 150 minutes each week, and recorded their daily diet and exercise (in a diary or using an app).

Semaglutide was administered with a prefilled pen injector at a dose of 0.25 mg/week for the first 4 weeks, escalated to 2.4 mg/week by week 16 (or lower if the patient had unacceptable side effects).

At 68 weeks, participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group had greater mean weight loss (14.9% vs. 2.4%, or 15.3 kg vs. 2.6 kg).

Participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group were much more likely to have lost at least 5% of their initial weight (86% vs. 31.5%) or at least 10% of their initial weight (69.1% vs. 12.0%), or at least 15% of their initial weight (50.5% vs. 4.9%; P < .001 for all three comparisons).

About 80% of participants adhered to the study treatment. A third of participants in the semaglutide group who completed the study lost at least 20% of their initial weight, which approaches the 20%-30% reported weight loss 1-3 years after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Participants in the semaglutide group also had greater improvements in waist circumference and levels of hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), and fasting lipids, as well as in physical function scores on SF-36 and IWQOL-Lite-CT questionnaires.

In their editorial, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted that “daily oral semaglutide [already approved in 7-mg and 14-mg doses for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as Rybelsus] might be more appealing to many people,” as a weight-loss medication than a once-weekly subcutaneous dose. Semaglutide is the first GLP-1 agonist available as an oral agent.

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial (with expected completion in 2023) will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years.
 

GI disorders and ‘important limitations’

More participants in the semaglutide than the placebo group reported gastrointestinal disorders (typically nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation; 74.2% vs. 47.9%), which were mostly transient and mild to moderate in severity, but also led to more treatment discontinuation (7.0% vs. 3.1%).

More patients in the semaglutide versus placebo group had a gall bladder–related disorder (2.6% vs. 1.2%, mostly cholelithiasis) and mild acute pancreatitis (3 vs. 0 participants), but there were no between-group differences in neoplasms.

Dr. Wilding and colleagues acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the fact that it enrolled mainly women, mainly non-White participants, was relatively short, and excluded patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mean placebo-corrected weight loss with 2.4 mg/weekly subcutaneous semaglutide was greater than with 3.0 mg once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – the only GLP-1 agonist approved for weight management – in the 56-week SCALE trial (12.4% vs. 4.5%); however, the two studies had different populations.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor and Dr. Rosen is an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Ingelfinger, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Leurent have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Rahilly has a current research collaboration with Novo Nordisk scientists in an unrelated area and has been a consultant for the company.

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

The phase 3a STEP 1 trial that investigated the use of semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, for weight loss is aptly named, some say.

“In sum, we have a long way to go to control the obesity epidemic ... but on the face of it, the STEP 1 trial (like its name) is a good beginning,” wrote coeditorialists Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine, also in Boston.

The trial findings by John P.H. Wilding, DM, University of Liverpool (England), and colleagues and an accompanying editorial were published online Feb. 10, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The results are encouraging, with significantly more patients in the semaglutide group having clinically important weight loss,” Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen stressed.

However, they also cautioned that “despite the positive results of this trial, the present study has some important limitations” and “there are concerns, including adverse events (mostly gastrointestinal – nausea, sometimes vomiting, and diarrhea) related primarily to the class of the agent.”

Two U.K. experts drew similar takeaways, speaking to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“This was a well-designed study with unequivocal findings,” which showed that semaglutide “is indeed likely to be a game-changer in the fight against obesity,” according to Baptiste Leurent, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

However, if the drug is approved at this dose for this use, patients would need close monitoring for gastrointestinal disorders, and “we also need to better understand what is happening once the treatment is stopped, and whether it could be taken for a shorter period of time.”

Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, MD, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge (England), pointed out that “GLP-1 is made by cells in the intestine and levels increase in the blood after a meal, providing some of the signal to the brain that tells us we are ‘full,’ ” so GLP-1 agonists have been studied as appetite suppressants, in addition to their approved use to treat type 2 diabetes.

Only about 4.5% of participants in STEP 1 stopped taking semaglutide because of gastrointestinal issues, he noted, although more participants in that group reported problems with gallstones, which can follow rapid weight loss.

And “unlike some previous appetite suppressant drugs which caused significant psychological and psychiatric side effects, there is no evidence that semaglutide has any adverse effects of that nature,” Dr. O’Rahilly noted.

In sum, he said, “this is the start of a new era for obesity drug development with the future direction being to achieve levels of weight loss comparable to semaglutide, while having fewer side effects.”
 

‘Pressing need’ to address obesity; semaglutide filed for obesity

There is a “pressing need” to address the worldwide increase in obesity and weight-related coexisting conditions, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted.

Sustained long-term weight loss with diet and exercise is challenging; behavioral weight-loss strategies “fail more often than not,” bariatric surgery is invasive and often followed by eventual weight regain, they wrote.

In addition, said Dr. Wilding and colleagues, the “use of available [weight-loss] medications remains limited by modest efficacy, safety concerns, and cost.”

Subcutaneous semaglutide, approved for treating type 2 diabetes (as Ozempic) in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week, induced weight loss at higher doses. The current study is part of the global Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity program of four trials (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) that aimed to test the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week for weight loss.

Topline results from STEP 1 were presented June 4, 2020.

And as reported earlier, results from STEP 3 – a 68-week trial of semaglutide versus placebo in 611 participants who all received very intensive diet and exercise counseling – were presented at the virtual ObesityWeek 2020 meeting.

The four trials of semaglutide for weight loss have been completed and the data were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 4, 2020 (with a decision expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
 

Most patients had 5% weight loss with semaglutide

The STEP 1 trial enrolled 1,961 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m² or at least 27 with at least one weight-related coexisting condition, but without type 2 diabetes, at 129 sites in 16 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Participants were a mean age of 47 and three-quarters were women. Most participants were White (76%), followed by Asian (13%), Black or African American (6%), or other (5%).

On average, they had a BMI of 38 and weighed 105 kg. Three-quarters had one or more coexisting conditions.

Participants were randomized to receive semaglutide (1,306 patients) or placebo (655 patients), added to lifestyle intervention.

Everyone received 17 monthly individual counseling sessions during which they learned about adhering to a diet with a 500-calorie/day deficit, were encouraged to build up to walking 150 minutes each week, and recorded their daily diet and exercise (in a diary or using an app).

Semaglutide was administered with a prefilled pen injector at a dose of 0.25 mg/week for the first 4 weeks, escalated to 2.4 mg/week by week 16 (or lower if the patient had unacceptable side effects).

At 68 weeks, participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group had greater mean weight loss (14.9% vs. 2.4%, or 15.3 kg vs. 2.6 kg).

Participants in the semaglutide versus placebo group were much more likely to have lost at least 5% of their initial weight (86% vs. 31.5%) or at least 10% of their initial weight (69.1% vs. 12.0%), or at least 15% of their initial weight (50.5% vs. 4.9%; P < .001 for all three comparisons).

About 80% of participants adhered to the study treatment. A third of participants in the semaglutide group who completed the study lost at least 20% of their initial weight, which approaches the 20%-30% reported weight loss 1-3 years after sleeve gastrectomy, the researchers noted.

Participants in the semaglutide group also had greater improvements in waist circumference and levels of hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation), and fasting lipids, as well as in physical function scores on SF-36 and IWQOL-Lite-CT questionnaires.

In their editorial, Dr. Ingelfinger and Dr. Rosen noted that “daily oral semaglutide [already approved in 7-mg and 14-mg doses for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as Rybelsus] might be more appealing to many people,” as a weight-loss medication than a once-weekly subcutaneous dose. Semaglutide is the first GLP-1 agonist available as an oral agent.

The ongoing Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients With Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) trial (with expected completion in 2023) will shed light on cardiovascular outcomes after 2.5-5 years.
 

GI disorders and ‘important limitations’

More participants in the semaglutide than the placebo group reported gastrointestinal disorders (typically nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation; 74.2% vs. 47.9%), which were mostly transient and mild to moderate in severity, but also led to more treatment discontinuation (7.0% vs. 3.1%).

More patients in the semaglutide versus placebo group had a gall bladder–related disorder (2.6% vs. 1.2%, mostly cholelithiasis) and mild acute pancreatitis (3 vs. 0 participants), but there were no between-group differences in neoplasms.

Dr. Wilding and colleagues acknowledge the limitations of the study, including the fact that it enrolled mainly women, mainly non-White participants, was relatively short, and excluded patients with type 2 diabetes.

Mean placebo-corrected weight loss with 2.4 mg/weekly subcutaneous semaglutide was greater than with 3.0 mg once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – the only GLP-1 agonist approved for weight management – in the 56-week SCALE trial (12.4% vs. 4.5%); however, the two studies had different populations.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Ingelfinger is a deputy editor and Dr. Rosen is an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Ingelfinger, Dr. Rosen, and Dr. Leurent have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. O’Rahilly has a current research collaboration with Novo Nordisk scientists in an unrelated area and has been a consultant for the company.

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

Patients who received intensive lifestyle training by coaches in the primary care setting experienced improvement in several indicators of cardiometabolic health in a 2-year trial.

The 803 trial participants comprised a racially diverse, low-income population with obesity. In this study, primary care clinics were randomly assigned to provide weight-loss coaching or usual care. Patients at the intensive training clinics lost significantly more weight than the other patients, as reported in a paper published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine on the PROmoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary CarE in Louisiana (PROPEL) trial. The patients who received weight loss coaching also had significantly more improvement in HDL cholesterol levels, total to HDL cholesterol ratios, and metabolic syndrome severity score, said researchers in the new paper on the PROPEL trial, which was published in Circulation on February 8 .

“We believe that one reason for success of the program was the use of a health coach [who] was embedded in the primary care office,” said lead author Peter Katzmarzyk, PhD, associate executive director for population and public health sciences at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La. “This way, the patients could get their counseling in a familiar environment and did not have to go to a different setting. The coaches developed close relationships with the patients over the 2 years, and this helped develop a sense of responsibility in the patients as the coaches were helping the patients to set goals and kept them accountable.”

In the PROPEL study, 67% of patients were Black and had low health literacy scores that corresponded with less than a ninth-grade education level. The intensive lifestyle intervention program included weekly sessions with the trained health coaches over the first 6 months — 16 face-to-face and 6 over the phone — and then at least monthly for the last 18 months. The coaches had higher education degrees in nutrition, physical activity, or behavioral medicine. Before the program started, the coaches also received training in the management of obesity and related health issues, health literacy, and patient communication and education. The goal of the program was 10% weight loss, using personalized action plans on eating, dieting, and physical activity.

Those in the usual-care clinics continued receiving normal care and received newsletters on health topics, such as the importance of sleep and tips for limiting time spent sitting. The primary care physicians at those clinics also were given a presentation with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) information on intensive lifestyle interventions for obesity.
 

Cholesterol changes in intervention vs. control group

HDL cholesterol improved significantly among the coached patients, compared with the other patients, with a mean difference of 4.1 mg/dL at 1 year and 4.6 mg/dL at 2 years (P less than .01 for both). The total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio showed a similarly significant difference in decline, with a between-group difference of –0.29 at 1 year and –0.31 at 2 years (P less than .01 for both). Also, the difference in the change in metabolic severity scores were –0.40 at 1 year and –0.21 at 2 years (P less than .01 for both).

Fasting blood glucose had declined after the 1st year by a significantly greater degree in the clinics with coaching, compared with the others, but not after the second year, researchers found.

There were no significant differences seen in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, or blood pressure. Dr. Katzmarzyk said the likely reason for no change in blood pressure was that it was already relatively well-controlled at baseline for all the patients.
 

Funding barriers to obesity treatment

The CMS currently cover intensive training for obesity if delivered directly by a primary care physician, according to the authors of the new paper. Dr. Katzmarzyk said he hopes that will change.

“We are hoping that the evidence provided in this study may change the way that CMS funds obesity treatment in the future by allowing an expansion of the care team,” he said.

John Flack, MD, chair of internal medicine at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, said that the main achievement of the study was that it showed that intensive weight-loss training in the primary-care setting could be accomplished in a racially diverse population with low health literacy.

“You can’t just automatically assume just because you’ve seen it in some other populations that you can replicate this in every population, so they’ve done a really good job,” he said.

That programs are eligible for reimbursement only if they’re run by primary-care physicians is an ongoing problem, he said.

“You don’t necessarily need to be a physician to do this,” Dr. Flack said.

For best results, payment for coaching should not be tied to office visits, Dr. Flack noted.

“If they’re de-tethered from the office visits and you’re paid for quality ... you’re going to build out your infrastructure differently to care for people,” he said.

Andrew Freeman, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver, and cochair of the American College of Cardiology’s nutrition and lifestyle work group, said the findings dovetail with his experience.

“I’m a huge believer that when people need to make lifestyle changes, having someone hold their hand and guide them through the effort is incredibly rewarding and incredibly powerful,” said Dr. Freeman, who also oversees the intensive cardiac rehab program at National Jewish Health in Denver.

A program like this needs proper funding in order to work, Dr, Freeman noted. He added that, even with coaches being paid well, “if you are able to prevent just one readmission for, say, heart failure a month . . . you could be saving millions of dollars over just a couple of years.”

Dr. Katzmarzyk, Dr. Flack, and Dr. Freeman reported no relevant disclosures. Louisiana State University, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and Montclair State University have interest in the intellectual property surrounding a weight graph used in the study. The other researchers reported grants and/or fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Takeda, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.
 

Patients who received intensive lifestyle training by coaches in the primary care setting experienced improvement in several indicators of cardiometabolic health in a 2-year trial.

The 803 trial participants comprised a racially diverse, low-income population with obesity. In this study, primary care clinics were randomly assigned to provide weight-loss coaching or usual care. Patients at the intensive training clinics lost significantly more weight than the other patients, as reported in a paper published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine on the PROmoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary CarE in Louisiana (PROPEL) trial. The patients who received weight loss coaching also had significantly more improvement in HDL cholesterol levels, total to HDL cholesterol ratios, and metabolic syndrome severity score, said researchers in the new paper on the PROPEL trial, which was published in Circulation on February 8 .

“We believe that one reason for success of the program was the use of a health coach [who] was embedded in the primary care office,” said lead author Peter Katzmarzyk, PhD, associate executive director for population and public health sciences at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La. “This way, the patients could get their counseling in a familiar environment and did not have to go to a different setting. The coaches developed close relationships with the patients over the 2 years, and this helped develop a sense of responsibility in the patients as the coaches were helping the patients to set goals and kept them accountable.”

In the PROPEL study, 67% of patients were Black and had low health literacy scores that corresponded with less than a ninth-grade education level. The intensive lifestyle intervention program included weekly sessions with the trained health coaches over the first 6 months — 16 face-to-face and 6 over the phone — and then at least monthly for the last 18 months. The coaches had higher education degrees in nutrition, physical activity, or behavioral medicine. Before the program started, the coaches also received training in the management of obesity and related health issues, health literacy, and patient communication and education. The goal of the program was 10% weight loss, using personalized action plans on eating, dieting, and physical activity.

Those in the usual-care clinics continued receiving normal care and received newsletters on health topics, such as the importance of sleep and tips for limiting time spent sitting. The primary care physicians at those clinics also were given a presentation with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) information on intensive lifestyle interventions for obesity.
 

Cholesterol changes in intervention vs. control group

HDL cholesterol improved significantly among the coached patients, compared with the other patients, with a mean difference of 4.1 mg/dL at 1 year and 4.6 mg/dL at 2 years (P less than .01 for both). The total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio showed a similarly significant difference in decline, with a between-group difference of –0.29 at 1 year and –0.31 at 2 years (P less than .01 for both). Also, the difference in the change in metabolic severity scores were –0.40 at 1 year and –0.21 at 2 years (P less than .01 for both).

Fasting blood glucose had declined after the 1st year by a significantly greater degree in the clinics with coaching, compared with the others, but not after the second year, researchers found.

There were no significant differences seen in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, or blood pressure. Dr. Katzmarzyk said the likely reason for no change in blood pressure was that it was already relatively well-controlled at baseline for all the patients.
 

Funding barriers to obesity treatment

The CMS currently cover intensive training for obesity if delivered directly by a primary care physician, according to the authors of the new paper. Dr. Katzmarzyk said he hopes that will change.

“We are hoping that the evidence provided in this study may change the way that CMS funds obesity treatment in the future by allowing an expansion of the care team,” he said.

John Flack, MD, chair of internal medicine at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, said that the main achievement of the study was that it showed that intensive weight-loss training in the primary-care setting could be accomplished in a racially diverse population with low health literacy.

“You can’t just automatically assume just because you’ve seen it in some other populations that you can replicate this in every population, so they’ve done a really good job,” he said.

That programs are eligible for reimbursement only if they’re run by primary-care physicians is an ongoing problem, he said.

“You don’t necessarily need to be a physician to do this,” Dr. Flack said.

For best results, payment for coaching should not be tied to office visits, Dr. Flack noted.

“If they’re de-tethered from the office visits and you’re paid for quality ... you’re going to build out your infrastructure differently to care for people,” he said.

Andrew Freeman, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver, and cochair of the American College of Cardiology’s nutrition and lifestyle work group, said the findings dovetail with his experience.

“I’m a huge believer that when people need to make lifestyle changes, having someone hold their hand and guide them through the effort is incredibly rewarding and incredibly powerful,” said Dr. Freeman, who also oversees the intensive cardiac rehab program at National Jewish Health in Denver.

A program like this needs proper funding in order to work, Dr, Freeman noted. He added that, even with coaches being paid well, “if you are able to prevent just one readmission for, say, heart failure a month . . . you could be saving millions of dollars over just a couple of years.”

Dr. Katzmarzyk, Dr. Flack, and Dr. Freeman reported no relevant disclosures. Louisiana State University, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and Montclair State University have interest in the intellectual property surrounding a weight graph used in the study. The other researchers reported grants and/or fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Takeda, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.
 

Patients who received intensive lifestyle training by coaches in the primary care setting experienced improvement in several indicators of cardiometabolic health in a 2-year trial.

The 803 trial participants comprised a racially diverse, low-income population with obesity. In this study, primary care clinics were randomly assigned to provide weight-loss coaching or usual care. Patients at the intensive training clinics lost significantly more weight than the other patients, as reported in a paper published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine on the PROmoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary CarE in Louisiana (PROPEL) trial. The patients who received weight loss coaching also had significantly more improvement in HDL cholesterol levels, total to HDL cholesterol ratios, and metabolic syndrome severity score, said researchers in the new paper on the PROPEL trial, which was published in Circulation on February 8 .

“We believe that one reason for success of the program was the use of a health coach [who] was embedded in the primary care office,” said lead author Peter Katzmarzyk, PhD, associate executive director for population and public health sciences at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La. “This way, the patients could get their counseling in a familiar environment and did not have to go to a different setting. The coaches developed close relationships with the patients over the 2 years, and this helped develop a sense of responsibility in the patients as the coaches were helping the patients to set goals and kept them accountable.”

In the PROPEL study, 67% of patients were Black and had low health literacy scores that corresponded with less than a ninth-grade education level. The intensive lifestyle intervention program included weekly sessions with the trained health coaches over the first 6 months — 16 face-to-face and 6 over the phone — and then at least monthly for the last 18 months. The coaches had higher education degrees in nutrition, physical activity, or behavioral medicine. Before the program started, the coaches also received training in the management of obesity and related health issues, health literacy, and patient communication and education. The goal of the program was 10% weight loss, using personalized action plans on eating, dieting, and physical activity.

Those in the usual-care clinics continued receiving normal care and received newsletters on health topics, such as the importance of sleep and tips for limiting time spent sitting. The primary care physicians at those clinics also were given a presentation with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) information on intensive lifestyle interventions for obesity.
 

Cholesterol changes in intervention vs. control group

HDL cholesterol improved significantly among the coached patients, compared with the other patients, with a mean difference of 4.1 mg/dL at 1 year and 4.6 mg/dL at 2 years (P less than .01 for both). The total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio showed a similarly significant difference in decline, with a between-group difference of –0.29 at 1 year and –0.31 at 2 years (P less than .01 for both). Also, the difference in the change in metabolic severity scores were –0.40 at 1 year and –0.21 at 2 years (P less than .01 for both).

Fasting blood glucose had declined after the 1st year by a significantly greater degree in the clinics with coaching, compared with the others, but not after the second year, researchers found.

There were no significant differences seen in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, or blood pressure. Dr. Katzmarzyk said the likely reason for no change in blood pressure was that it was already relatively well-controlled at baseline for all the patients.
 

Funding barriers to obesity treatment

The CMS currently cover intensive training for obesity if delivered directly by a primary care physician, according to the authors of the new paper. Dr. Katzmarzyk said he hopes that will change.

“We are hoping that the evidence provided in this study may change the way that CMS funds obesity treatment in the future by allowing an expansion of the care team,” he said.

John Flack, MD, chair of internal medicine at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, said that the main achievement of the study was that it showed that intensive weight-loss training in the primary-care setting could be accomplished in a racially diverse population with low health literacy.

“You can’t just automatically assume just because you’ve seen it in some other populations that you can replicate this in every population, so they’ve done a really good job,” he said.

That programs are eligible for reimbursement only if they’re run by primary-care physicians is an ongoing problem, he said.

“You don’t necessarily need to be a physician to do this,” Dr. Flack said.

For best results, payment for coaching should not be tied to office visits, Dr. Flack noted.

“If they’re de-tethered from the office visits and you’re paid for quality ... you’re going to build out your infrastructure differently to care for people,” he said.

Andrew Freeman, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver, and cochair of the American College of Cardiology’s nutrition and lifestyle work group, said the findings dovetail with his experience.

“I’m a huge believer that when people need to make lifestyle changes, having someone hold their hand and guide them through the effort is incredibly rewarding and incredibly powerful,” said Dr. Freeman, who also oversees the intensive cardiac rehab program at National Jewish Health in Denver.

A program like this needs proper funding in order to work, Dr, Freeman noted. He added that, even with coaches being paid well, “if you are able to prevent just one readmission for, say, heart failure a month . . . you could be saving millions of dollars over just a couple of years.”

Dr. Katzmarzyk, Dr. Flack, and Dr. Freeman reported no relevant disclosures. Louisiana State University, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and Montclair State University have interest in the intellectual property surrounding a weight graph used in the study. The other researchers reported grants and/or fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Takeda, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.
 

Familial renal glucosuria is an uncommon, rarely documented condition wherein the absence of other renal or endocrine conditions and with a normal serum glucose level, glucosuria persists due to an isolated defect in the nephron’s proximal tubule. Seemingly, in these patients, the body’s physiologic function mimics that of sodiumglucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2)-inhibiting medications with the glucose cotransporter being selectively targeted for promoting renal excretion of glucose. This has implications for the patient’s prospective development of hyperglycemic diseases, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and potentially even cardiovascular disease. Though it is a generally asymptomatic condition, it is one that seasoned clinicians should investigate given the future impacts and considerations required for their patients.

Case Presentation

Mr. A was a 28-year-old male with no medical history nor prescription medication use who presented to the nephrology clinic at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in June 2019 for a workup of asymptomatic glucosuria. The condition was discovered on a routine urinalysis in October 2015 at the initial presentation at Eglin Air Force Base, when the patient was being evaluated by his primary care physician for acute, benign headache with fever and chills. Urinalysis testing was performed in October 2015 and resulted in a urine glucose of 500 mg/dL (2+). He was directed to the emergency department for further evaluation, reciprocating the results.

On further laboratory testing in October 2015, his blood glucose was normal at 75 mg/dL; hemoglobin A1c was 5.5%. On repeat urinalysis 2 weeks later, his urinary glucose was found to be 500 mg/dL (2+). Each time, the elevated urinary glucose was the only abnormal finding: There was no concurrent hematuria, proteinuria, or ketonuria. The patient reported he had no associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dysuria, polyuria, and increased thirst. He was not taking any prescription medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors. His presenting headache and fever resolved with supportive care and was considered unrelated to his additional workup.

A diagnostic evaluation ensued from 2015 to 2020, including follow-up urinalyses, metabolic panels, complete blood counts, urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP), urine creatinine, urine electrolytes, 25-OH vitamin D level, κ/λ light chain panel, and serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP). The results of all diagnostic workup throughout the entirety of his evaluation were found to be normal. In 2020, his 25-OH vitamin D level was borderline low at 29.4 ng/mL. His κ/λ ratio was normal at 1.65, and his serum albumin protein electrophoresis was 4.74 g/dL, marginally elevated, but his SPEP and UPEP were normal, as were urine protein levels, total gamma globulin, and no monoclonal gamma spike noted on pathology review. Serum uric acid, and urine phosphorous were both normal. His serum creatinine and electrolytes were all within normal limits. Over the 5 years of intermittent monitoring, the maximum amount of glucosuria was 1,000 mg/dL (3+) and the minimum was 250 mg/dL (1+). There was a gap of monitoring from March 2016 until June 2019 due to the patient receiving care from offsite health care providers without shared documentation of specific laboratory values, but notes documenting persistent glucosuria (Table).

Analysis

Building the initial differential diagnosis for this patient began with confirming that he had isolated glucosuria, and not glucosuria secondary to elevated serum glucose. Additionally, conditions related to generalized proximal tubule dysfunction, acute or chronic impaired renal function, and neoplasms, including multiple myeloma (MM), were eliminated because this patient did not have the other specific findings associated with these conditions.

Proximal tubulopathies, including proximal renal tubular acidosis (type 2) and Fanconi syndrome, was initially a leading diagnosis in this patient. Isolated proximal renal tubular acidosis (RTA) (type 2) is uncommon and pathophysiologically involves reduced proximal tubular reabsorption of bicarbonate, resulting in low serum bicarbonate and metabolic acidosis. Patients with isolated proximal RTA (type 2) typically present in infancy with failure to thrive, tachypnea, recurrent vomiting, and feeding difficulties. These symptoms do not meet our patient’s clinical presentation. Fanconi syndrome involves a specific disruption in the proximal tubular apical sodium uptake mechanism affecting the transmembrane sodium gradient and the sodium-potassium- ATPase pump. Fanconi syndrome, therefore, would not only present with glucosuria, but also classically with proteinuria, hypophosphatemia, hypokalemia, and a hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis.

Chronic or acute renal disease may present with glucosuria, but one would expect additional findings including elevated serum creatinine, elevated urinary creatinine, 25-OH vitamin D deficiency, or anemia of chronic disease. Other potential diagnoses included MM and similar neoplasms. MM also would present with glucosuria with proteinuria, an elevated κ/λ light chain ratio, and an elevated SPEP and concern for bone lytic lesions, which were not present. A related disorder, monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS), akin to monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS), presents with proteinuria with evidence of renal injury. While this patient had a marginally elevated κ/λ light chain ratio, the remainder of his SPEP and UPEP were normal, and evaluation by a hematologist/ oncologist and pathology review of laboratory findings confirmed no additional evidence for MM, including no monoclonal γ spike. With no evidence of renal injury with a normal serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate, MGRS was eliminated from the differential as it did not meet the International Myeloma Working Group diagnostic criteria.¹ The elevated κ/λ ratio with normal renal function is attributed to polyclonal immunoglobulin elevation, which may occur more commonly with uncomplicated acute viral illnesses.

Diagnosis

The differential homed in on a targeted defect in the proximal tubular SGLT2 gene as the final diagnosis causing isolated glucosuria. Familial renal glucosuria (FRG), a condition caused by a mutation in the SLC5A2 gene that codes for the SGLT2 has been identified in the literature as causing cases with nearly identical presentations to this patient.^2,3 This condition is often found in otherwise healthy, asymptomatic patients in whom isolated glucosuria was identified on routine urinalysis testing.

Due to isolated case reports sharing this finding and the asymptomatic nature of the condition, specific data pertaining to its prevalence are not available. Case studies of other affected individuals have not noted adverse effects (AEs), such as UTIs or hypotension specifically^.2,3 The patient was referred for genetic testing for this gene mutation; however, he was unable to obtain the test due to lack of insurance coverage. Mr. A has no other family members that have been evaluated for or identified as having this condition. Despite the name, FRG has an unknown inheritance pattern and is attributed to a variety of missense mutations in the SLC5A2 gene.^4,5

Discussion

The SGLT2 gene believed to be mutated in this patient has recently become wellknown. The inhibition of the SGLT2 transport protein has become an important tool in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) independent of the insulin pathway. The SGLT2 in the proximal convoluted tubule of the kidney reabsorbs the majority, 98%, of the renal glucose for reabsorption, and the remaining glucose is reabsorbed by the SGLT2 gene in the more distal portion of the proximal tubule in healthy individuals.^4,6 The normal renal threshold for glucose reabsorption in a patient with a normal glomerular filtration rate is equivalent to a serum glucose concentration of 180 mg/dL, even higher in patients with T2DM due to upregulation of the SGLT2 inhibitors. SGLT2 inhibitors, such as canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, selectively inhibit this cotransporter, reducing the threshold from 40 to 120 mg/dL, thereby significantly increasing the renal excretion of glucose.⁴ The patient’s mutation in question and clinical presentation aligned with a naturally occurring mimicry of this drug’s mechanism of action (Figure).

Arguably, one of the more significant benefits to using this new class of oral antihyperglycemics, aside from the noninferior glycemic control compared with that of other first-line agents, is the added metabolic benefit. To date, SGLT2 inhibitors have been found to decrease blood pressure in all studies of the medications and promote moderate weight loss.⁷ SGLT2 inhibitors have not only demonstrated significant cardiovascular (CV) benefits, linked with the aforementioned metabolic benefits, but also have reduced hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with T2DM and those without.⁷ The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial showed a 38% relative risk reduction in CV events in empagliflozin vs placebo.^4,8 However, it is unknown whether patients with the SLC5A2 mutation also benefit from these CV benefits akin to the SGLT2 inhibiting medications, and it is and worthy of studying via longterm follow-up with patients similar to this.

This SLC5A2 mutation causing FRG selectively inhibiting SGLT2 function effectively causes this patient’s natural physiology to mimic that of these new oral antihyperglycemic medications. Patients with FRG should be counseled regarding this condition and the implications it has on their overall health. At this time, there is no formal recommendation for short-term or longterm management of patients with FRG; observation and routine preventive care monitoring based on US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations apply to this population in line with the general population.

This condition is not known to be associated with hypotension or hypoglycemia, and to some extent, it can be theorized that patients with this condition may have inherent protection of development of hyperglycemia. ⁴ Akin to patients on SGLT2 inhibitors, these patients may be at an increased risk of UTIs and genital infections, including mycotic infections due to glycemic-related imbalance in the normal flora of the urinary tract.⁹ Other serious AEs of SGLT2 inhibitors, such as diabetic ketoacidosis, osteoporosis and related fractures, and acute pancreatitis, should be shared with FRG patients, though they are unlikely to be at increased risk for this condition in the setting of normal serum glucose and electrolyte levels. Notably, the osteoporosis risk is small, and specific other risk factors pertinent to individual patient’s medical history, and canagliflozin exclusively. If a patient with FRG develops T2DM after diagnosis, it is imperative that they inform physicians of their condition, because SGLT2-inhibiting drugs will be ineffective in this subset of patients, necessitating increased clinical judgment in selecting an appropriate antihyperglycemic agent in this population.

Conclusions

FRG is an uncommon diagnosis of exclusion that presents with isolated glucosuria in the setting of normal serum glucose. The patient generally presents asymptomatically with a urinalysis completed for other reasons, and the patient may or may not have a family history of similar findings. The condition is of particular interest given that its SGLT2 mutation mimics the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors used for T2DM. More monitoring of patients with this condition will be required for documentation regarding long-term implications, including development of further renal disease, T2DM, or CV disease.

Familial renal glucosuria is an uncommon, rarely documented condition wherein the absence of other renal or endocrine conditions and with a normal serum glucose level, glucosuria persists due to an isolated defect in the nephron’s proximal tubule. Seemingly, in these patients, the body’s physiologic function mimics that of sodiumglucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2)-inhibiting medications with the glucose cotransporter being selectively targeted for promoting renal excretion of glucose. This has implications for the patient’s prospective development of hyperglycemic diseases, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and potentially even cardiovascular disease. Though it is a generally asymptomatic condition, it is one that seasoned clinicians should investigate given the future impacts and considerations required for their patients.

Case Presentation

Mr. A was a 28-year-old male with no medical history nor prescription medication use who presented to the nephrology clinic at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in June 2019 for a workup of asymptomatic glucosuria. The condition was discovered on a routine urinalysis in October 2015 at the initial presentation at Eglin Air Force Base, when the patient was being evaluated by his primary care physician for acute, benign headache with fever and chills. Urinalysis testing was performed in October 2015 and resulted in a urine glucose of 500 mg/dL (2+). He was directed to the emergency department for further evaluation, reciprocating the results.

On further laboratory testing in October 2015, his blood glucose was normal at 75 mg/dL; hemoglobin A1c was 5.5%. On repeat urinalysis 2 weeks later, his urinary glucose was found to be 500 mg/dL (2+). Each time, the elevated urinary glucose was the only abnormal finding: There was no concurrent hematuria, proteinuria, or ketonuria. The patient reported he had no associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dysuria, polyuria, and increased thirst. He was not taking any prescription medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors. His presenting headache and fever resolved with supportive care and was considered unrelated to his additional workup.

A diagnostic evaluation ensued from 2015 to 2020, including follow-up urinalyses, metabolic panels, complete blood counts, urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP), urine creatinine, urine electrolytes, 25-OH vitamin D level, κ/λ light chain panel, and serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP). The results of all diagnostic workup throughout the entirety of his evaluation were found to be normal. In 2020, his 25-OH vitamin D level was borderline low at 29.4 ng/mL. His κ/λ ratio was normal at 1.65, and his serum albumin protein electrophoresis was 4.74 g/dL, marginally elevated, but his SPEP and UPEP were normal, as were urine protein levels, total gamma globulin, and no monoclonal gamma spike noted on pathology review. Serum uric acid, and urine phosphorous were both normal. His serum creatinine and electrolytes were all within normal limits. Over the 5 years of intermittent monitoring, the maximum amount of glucosuria was 1,000 mg/dL (3+) and the minimum was 250 mg/dL (1+). There was a gap of monitoring from March 2016 until June 2019 due to the patient receiving care from offsite health care providers without shared documentation of specific laboratory values, but notes documenting persistent glucosuria (Table).

Analysis

Building the initial differential diagnosis for this patient began with confirming that he had isolated glucosuria, and not glucosuria secondary to elevated serum glucose. Additionally, conditions related to generalized proximal tubule dysfunction, acute or chronic impaired renal function, and neoplasms, including multiple myeloma (MM), were eliminated because this patient did not have the other specific findings associated with these conditions.

Proximal tubulopathies, including proximal renal tubular acidosis (type 2) and Fanconi syndrome, was initially a leading diagnosis in this patient. Isolated proximal renal tubular acidosis (RTA) (type 2) is uncommon and pathophysiologically involves reduced proximal tubular reabsorption of bicarbonate, resulting in low serum bicarbonate and metabolic acidosis. Patients with isolated proximal RTA (type 2) typically present in infancy with failure to thrive, tachypnea, recurrent vomiting, and feeding difficulties. These symptoms do not meet our patient’s clinical presentation. Fanconi syndrome involves a specific disruption in the proximal tubular apical sodium uptake mechanism affecting the transmembrane sodium gradient and the sodium-potassium- ATPase pump. Fanconi syndrome, therefore, would not only present with glucosuria, but also classically with proteinuria, hypophosphatemia, hypokalemia, and a hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis.

Chronic or acute renal disease may present with glucosuria, but one would expect additional findings including elevated serum creatinine, elevated urinary creatinine, 25-OH vitamin D deficiency, or anemia of chronic disease. Other potential diagnoses included MM and similar neoplasms. MM also would present with glucosuria with proteinuria, an elevated κ/λ light chain ratio, and an elevated SPEP and concern for bone lytic lesions, which were not present. A related disorder, monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS), akin to monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS), presents with proteinuria with evidence of renal injury. While this patient had a marginally elevated κ/λ light chain ratio, the remainder of his SPEP and UPEP were normal, and evaluation by a hematologist/ oncologist and pathology review of laboratory findings confirmed no additional evidence for MM, including no monoclonal γ spike. With no evidence of renal injury with a normal serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate, MGRS was eliminated from the differential as it did not meet the International Myeloma Working Group diagnostic criteria.¹ The elevated κ/λ ratio with normal renal function is attributed to polyclonal immunoglobulin elevation, which may occur more commonly with uncomplicated acute viral illnesses.

Diagnosis

The differential homed in on a targeted defect in the proximal tubular SGLT2 gene as the final diagnosis causing isolated glucosuria. Familial renal glucosuria (FRG), a condition caused by a mutation in the SLC5A2 gene that codes for the SGLT2 has been identified in the literature as causing cases with nearly identical presentations to this patient.^2,3 This condition is often found in otherwise healthy, asymptomatic patients in whom isolated glucosuria was identified on routine urinalysis testing.

Due to isolated case reports sharing this finding and the asymptomatic nature of the condition, specific data pertaining to its prevalence are not available. Case studies of other affected individuals have not noted adverse effects (AEs), such as UTIs or hypotension specifically^.2,3 The patient was referred for genetic testing for this gene mutation; however, he was unable to obtain the test due to lack of insurance coverage. Mr. A has no other family members that have been evaluated for or identified as having this condition. Despite the name, FRG has an unknown inheritance pattern and is attributed to a variety of missense mutations in the SLC5A2 gene.^4,5

Discussion

The SGLT2 gene believed to be mutated in this patient has recently become wellknown. The inhibition of the SGLT2 transport protein has become an important tool in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) independent of the insulin pathway. The SGLT2 in the proximal convoluted tubule of the kidney reabsorbs the majority, 98%, of the renal glucose for reabsorption, and the remaining glucose is reabsorbed by the SGLT2 gene in the more distal portion of the proximal tubule in healthy individuals.^4,6 The normal renal threshold for glucose reabsorption in a patient with a normal glomerular filtration rate is equivalent to a serum glucose concentration of 180 mg/dL, even higher in patients with T2DM due to upregulation of the SGLT2 inhibitors. SGLT2 inhibitors, such as canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, selectively inhibit this cotransporter, reducing the threshold from 40 to 120 mg/dL, thereby significantly increasing the renal excretion of glucose.⁴ The patient’s mutation in question and clinical presentation aligned with a naturally occurring mimicry of this drug’s mechanism of action (Figure).

Arguably, one of the more significant benefits to using this new class of oral antihyperglycemics, aside from the noninferior glycemic control compared with that of other first-line agents, is the added metabolic benefit. To date, SGLT2 inhibitors have been found to decrease blood pressure in all studies of the medications and promote moderate weight loss.⁷ SGLT2 inhibitors have not only demonstrated significant cardiovascular (CV) benefits, linked with the aforementioned metabolic benefits, but also have reduced hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with T2DM and those without.⁷ The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial showed a 38% relative risk reduction in CV events in empagliflozin vs placebo.^4,8 However, it is unknown whether patients with the SLC5A2 mutation also benefit from these CV benefits akin to the SGLT2 inhibiting medications, and it is and worthy of studying via longterm follow-up with patients similar to this.

This SLC5A2 mutation causing FRG selectively inhibiting SGLT2 function effectively causes this patient’s natural physiology to mimic that of these new oral antihyperglycemic medications. Patients with FRG should be counseled regarding this condition and the implications it has on their overall health. At this time, there is no formal recommendation for short-term or longterm management of patients with FRG; observation and routine preventive care monitoring based on US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations apply to this population in line with the general population.

This condition is not known to be associated with hypotension or hypoglycemia, and to some extent, it can be theorized that patients with this condition may have inherent protection of development of hyperglycemia. ⁴ Akin to patients on SGLT2 inhibitors, these patients may be at an increased risk of UTIs and genital infections, including mycotic infections due to glycemic-related imbalance in the normal flora of the urinary tract.⁹ Other serious AEs of SGLT2 inhibitors, such as diabetic ketoacidosis, osteoporosis and related fractures, and acute pancreatitis, should be shared with FRG patients, though they are unlikely to be at increased risk for this condition in the setting of normal serum glucose and electrolyte levels. Notably, the osteoporosis risk is small, and specific other risk factors pertinent to individual patient’s medical history, and canagliflozin exclusively. If a patient with FRG develops T2DM after diagnosis, it is imperative that they inform physicians of their condition, because SGLT2-inhibiting drugs will be ineffective in this subset of patients, necessitating increased clinical judgment in selecting an appropriate antihyperglycemic agent in this population.

Conclusions

FRG is an uncommon diagnosis of exclusion that presents with isolated glucosuria in the setting of normal serum glucose. The patient generally presents asymptomatically with a urinalysis completed for other reasons, and the patient may or may not have a family history of similar findings. The condition is of particular interest given that its SGLT2 mutation mimics the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors used for T2DM. More monitoring of patients with this condition will be required for documentation regarding long-term implications, including development of further renal disease, T2DM, or CV disease.

Familial renal glucosuria is an uncommon, rarely documented condition wherein the absence of other renal or endocrine conditions and with a normal serum glucose level, glucosuria persists due to an isolated defect in the nephron’s proximal tubule. Seemingly, in these patients, the body’s physiologic function mimics that of sodiumglucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2)-inhibiting medications with the glucose cotransporter being selectively targeted for promoting renal excretion of glucose. This has implications for the patient’s prospective development of hyperglycemic diseases, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and potentially even cardiovascular disease. Though it is a generally asymptomatic condition, it is one that seasoned clinicians should investigate given the future impacts and considerations required for their patients.

Case Presentation

Mr. A was a 28-year-old male with no medical history nor prescription medication use who presented to the nephrology clinic at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in June 2019 for a workup of asymptomatic glucosuria. The condition was discovered on a routine urinalysis in October 2015 at the initial presentation at Eglin Air Force Base, when the patient was being evaluated by his primary care physician for acute, benign headache with fever and chills. Urinalysis testing was performed in October 2015 and resulted in a urine glucose of 500 mg/dL (2+). He was directed to the emergency department for further evaluation, reciprocating the results.

On further laboratory testing in October 2015, his blood glucose was normal at 75 mg/dL; hemoglobin A1c was 5.5%. On repeat urinalysis 2 weeks later, his urinary glucose was found to be 500 mg/dL (2+). Each time, the elevated urinary glucose was the only abnormal finding: There was no concurrent hematuria, proteinuria, or ketonuria. The patient reported he had no associated symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dysuria, polyuria, and increased thirst. He was not taking any prescription medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors. His presenting headache and fever resolved with supportive care and was considered unrelated to his additional workup.

A diagnostic evaluation ensued from 2015 to 2020, including follow-up urinalyses, metabolic panels, complete blood counts, urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP), urine creatinine, urine electrolytes, 25-OH vitamin D level, κ/λ light chain panel, and serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP). The results of all diagnostic workup throughout the entirety of his evaluation were found to be normal. In 2020, his 25-OH vitamin D level was borderline low at 29.4 ng/mL. His κ/λ ratio was normal at 1.65, and his serum albumin protein electrophoresis was 4.74 g/dL, marginally elevated, but his SPEP and UPEP were normal, as were urine protein levels, total gamma globulin, and no monoclonal gamma spike noted on pathology review. Serum uric acid, and urine phosphorous were both normal. His serum creatinine and electrolytes were all within normal limits. Over the 5 years of intermittent monitoring, the maximum amount of glucosuria was 1,000 mg/dL (3+) and the minimum was 250 mg/dL (1+). There was a gap of monitoring from March 2016 until June 2019 due to the patient receiving care from offsite health care providers without shared documentation of specific laboratory values, but notes documenting persistent glucosuria (Table).

Analysis

Building the initial differential diagnosis for this patient began with confirming that he had isolated glucosuria, and not glucosuria secondary to elevated serum glucose. Additionally, conditions related to generalized proximal tubule dysfunction, acute or chronic impaired renal function, and neoplasms, including multiple myeloma (MM), were eliminated because this patient did not have the other specific findings associated with these conditions.

Proximal tubulopathies, including proximal renal tubular acidosis (type 2) and Fanconi syndrome, was initially a leading diagnosis in this patient. Isolated proximal renal tubular acidosis (RTA) (type 2) is uncommon and pathophysiologically involves reduced proximal tubular reabsorption of bicarbonate, resulting in low serum bicarbonate and metabolic acidosis. Patients with isolated proximal RTA (type 2) typically present in infancy with failure to thrive, tachypnea, recurrent vomiting, and feeding difficulties. These symptoms do not meet our patient’s clinical presentation. Fanconi syndrome involves a specific disruption in the proximal tubular apical sodium uptake mechanism affecting the transmembrane sodium gradient and the sodium-potassium- ATPase pump. Fanconi syndrome, therefore, would not only present with glucosuria, but also classically with proteinuria, hypophosphatemia, hypokalemia, and a hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis.

Chronic or acute renal disease may present with glucosuria, but one would expect additional findings including elevated serum creatinine, elevated urinary creatinine, 25-OH vitamin D deficiency, or anemia of chronic disease. Other potential diagnoses included MM and similar neoplasms. MM also would present with glucosuria with proteinuria, an elevated κ/λ light chain ratio, and an elevated SPEP and concern for bone lytic lesions, which were not present. A related disorder, monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS), akin to monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS), presents with proteinuria with evidence of renal injury. While this patient had a marginally elevated κ/λ light chain ratio, the remainder of his SPEP and UPEP were normal, and evaluation by a hematologist/ oncologist and pathology review of laboratory findings confirmed no additional evidence for MM, including no monoclonal γ spike. With no evidence of renal injury with a normal serum creatinine and glomerular filtration rate, MGRS was eliminated from the differential as it did not meet the International Myeloma Working Group diagnostic criteria.¹ The elevated κ/λ ratio with normal renal function is attributed to polyclonal immunoglobulin elevation, which may occur more commonly with uncomplicated acute viral illnesses.

Diagnosis

The differential homed in on a targeted defect in the proximal tubular SGLT2 gene as the final diagnosis causing isolated glucosuria. Familial renal glucosuria (FRG), a condition caused by a mutation in the SLC5A2 gene that codes for the SGLT2 has been identified in the literature as causing cases with nearly identical presentations to this patient.^2,3 This condition is often found in otherwise healthy, asymptomatic patients in whom isolated glucosuria was identified on routine urinalysis testing.

Due to isolated case reports sharing this finding and the asymptomatic nature of the condition, specific data pertaining to its prevalence are not available. Case studies of other affected individuals have not noted adverse effects (AEs), such as UTIs or hypotension specifically^.2,3 The patient was referred for genetic testing for this gene mutation; however, he was unable to obtain the test due to lack of insurance coverage. Mr. A has no other family members that have been evaluated for or identified as having this condition. Despite the name, FRG has an unknown inheritance pattern and is attributed to a variety of missense mutations in the SLC5A2 gene.^4,5

Discussion

The SGLT2 gene believed to be mutated in this patient has recently become wellknown. The inhibition of the SGLT2 transport protein has become an important tool in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) independent of the insulin pathway. The SGLT2 in the proximal convoluted tubule of the kidney reabsorbs the majority, 98%, of the renal glucose for reabsorption, and the remaining glucose is reabsorbed by the SGLT2 gene in the more distal portion of the proximal tubule in healthy individuals.^4,6 The normal renal threshold for glucose reabsorption in a patient with a normal glomerular filtration rate is equivalent to a serum glucose concentration of 180 mg/dL, even higher in patients with T2DM due to upregulation of the SGLT2 inhibitors. SGLT2 inhibitors, such as canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, selectively inhibit this cotransporter, reducing the threshold from 40 to 120 mg/dL, thereby significantly increasing the renal excretion of glucose.⁴ The patient’s mutation in question and clinical presentation aligned with a naturally occurring mimicry of this drug’s mechanism of action (Figure).

Arguably, one of the more significant benefits to using this new class of oral antihyperglycemics, aside from the noninferior glycemic control compared with that of other first-line agents, is the added metabolic benefit. To date, SGLT2 inhibitors have been found to decrease blood pressure in all studies of the medications and promote moderate weight loss.⁷ SGLT2 inhibitors have not only demonstrated significant cardiovascular (CV) benefits, linked with the aforementioned metabolic benefits, but also have reduced hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with T2DM and those without.⁷ The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial showed a 38% relative risk reduction in CV events in empagliflozin vs placebo.^4,8 However, it is unknown whether patients with the SLC5A2 mutation also benefit from these CV benefits akin to the SGLT2 inhibiting medications, and it is and worthy of studying via longterm follow-up with patients similar to this.

This SLC5A2 mutation causing FRG selectively inhibiting SGLT2 function effectively causes this patient’s natural physiology to mimic that of these new oral antihyperglycemic medications. Patients with FRG should be counseled regarding this condition and the implications it has on their overall health. At this time, there is no formal recommendation for short-term or longterm management of patients with FRG; observation and routine preventive care monitoring based on US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations apply to this population in line with the general population.

This condition is not known to be associated with hypotension or hypoglycemia, and to some extent, it can be theorized that patients with this condition may have inherent protection of development of hyperglycemia. ⁴ Akin to patients on SGLT2 inhibitors, these patients may be at an increased risk of UTIs and genital infections, including mycotic infections due to glycemic-related imbalance in the normal flora of the urinary tract.⁹ Other serious AEs of SGLT2 inhibitors, such as diabetic ketoacidosis, osteoporosis and related fractures, and acute pancreatitis, should be shared with FRG patients, though they are unlikely to be at increased risk for this condition in the setting of normal serum glucose and electrolyte levels. Notably, the osteoporosis risk is small, and specific other risk factors pertinent to individual patient’s medical history, and canagliflozin exclusively. If a patient with FRG develops T2DM after diagnosis, it is imperative that they inform physicians of their condition, because SGLT2-inhibiting drugs will be ineffective in this subset of patients, necessitating increased clinical judgment in selecting an appropriate antihyperglycemic agent in this population.

Conclusions

FRG is an uncommon diagnosis of exclusion that presents with isolated glucosuria in the setting of normal serum glucose. The patient generally presents asymptomatically with a urinalysis completed for other reasons, and the patient may or may not have a family history of similar findings. The condition is of particular interest given that its SGLT2 mutation mimics the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors used for T2DM. More monitoring of patients with this condition will be required for documentation regarding long-term implications, including development of further renal disease, T2DM, or CV disease.

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers say women with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin had a reduced rate of the most common type of breast cancer, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, during a median follow-up of nearly 9 years in a prospective study of more than 44,000 individuals in the United States.

Conversely, the results also showed higher rates of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer among women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin, although case numbers were small.

“Our conclusion that having type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing breast cancer but taking metformin may protect against developing ER-positive breast cancer – but not other types of breast cancer – is biologically plausible and supported by our results, even though some [endpoints] are not statistically significant,” senior author Dale P. Sandler, PhD, chief of the epidemiology branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in an interview.

“Among our findings that are not statistically significant are several that helped us get a better picture of the relationships between type 2 diabetes, metformin treatment, and breast cancer risk,” Dr. Sandler added.

The results were published online Jan. 28 in Annals of Oncology by Yong-Moon Mark Park, MD, PhD, now an epidemiologist at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, and colleagues.

Sara P. Cate, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, who was not involved with the study, said: “Certainly, metformin helps with weight loss, which is linked with estrogen-driven breast cancers, so this may explain why fewer patients on metformin got this type of breast cancer.”
 

A tangled web ... with no clear conclusions yet

But in an accompanying editorial, Ana E. Lohmann, MD, PhD, and Pamela J. Goodwin, MD, say that, while this is “a large, well-designed prospective cohort study,” it tells a complicated story.

“The report by Park adds to the growing evidence linking type 2 diabetes and its treatment to breast cancer risk, but definitive conclusions regarding these associations are not yet possible,” they observe.

The “largely negative” results of the new study perhaps in part occurred because the cohort included only 277 women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed with incident breast cancer, note Dr. Lohmann, of London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Goodwin, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

“Clearly, this is an important area, and additional research is needed to untangle the web of inter-related associations of type 2 diabetes, its treatment, and breast cancer risk,” they write.

Examination of the effects of metformin in studies such as the Canadian Cancer Trial Group MA.32, a phase 3 trial of over 3,500 women with hormone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer who are being randomized to metformin or placebo for up to 5 years in addition to standard adjuvant therapy, will provide further insights, they observe. The trial is slated to be completed in February 2022.
 

Study followed women whose sisters had breast cancer 

The new data come from the Sister Study, which followed more than 50,000 women without a history of breast cancer who had sisters or half-sisters with a breast cancer diagnosis. The study, run by the NIEHS, enrolled women 35-74 years old from all 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico in 2003-2009.

The current analysis excluded women with a history of any other type of cancer, missing data about diabetes, or an uncertain breast cancer diagnosis during the study, which left 44,541 available for study. At entry, 7% of the women had type 2 diabetes, and another 5% developed new-onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up.

Among those with diabetes, 61% received treatment with metformin either alone or with other antidiabetic drugs.

During a median follow-up of 8.6 years, 2,678 women received a diagnosis of primary breast cancer, either invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ.

In a series of multivariate analyses that adjusted for numerous potential confounders, the authors found that, overall, no association existed between diabetes and breast cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 0.99, compared with women without diabetes.

But, said Dr. Sandler, “there is a strong biological rationale to hypothesize that type 2 diabetes increases the risk for breast cancer, and results from earlier studies support this.”
 

Association of metformin and breast cancer

Women with type 2 diabetes who received metformin had a 14% lower rate of ER-positive breast cancer, compared with women with diabetes not taking metformin, a nonsignificant association.

Among women taking metformin for at least 10 years, the associated reduction in ER-positive breast cancer, compared with those who did not take it, was 38%, a difference that just missed significance, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.01.

In contrast, cases of ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancers increased in the women with diabetes taking metformin. The hazard ratio for ER-negative tumors showed a nonsignificant 25% relative increase in women taking metformin and a significant 74% increase in triple-negative cancers.

The editorialists note, however, that “the number of patients who were found to have triple-negative breast cancer was small [so] we cannot draw any practice-changing conclusions from it.”

In conclusion, Dr. Park and colleagues reiterate: “Our analysis is consistent with a potential protective effect of metformin and suggests that long-term use of metformin may reduce breast cancer risk associated with type 2 diabetes.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sandler, Dr. Park, Dr. Lohmann, Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Cate have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who report regularly eating oily fish had a significantly reduced risk for developing type 2 diabetes in a prospective, observational study of nearly 400,000 UK residents.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The results also show a significant, but weaker, positive link between regular use of fish oil supplements and a drop in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, Qibin Qi, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Diabetes Care. Their analysis failed to show a significant link between consumption of non-oily fish and type 2 diabetes onset.

The study is notable for being “the largest so far” to examine the link between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence, and the first to establish a clear, significant association between regularly eating oily fish and a drop in the incidence of diabetes, said Dr. Qi, an epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

“At present, it is prudent to recommend fresh oily fish as a part of a healthy dietary pattern instead of fish oil supplements for diabetes prevention,” said Dr. Qi and coauthors.

The study included just over 392,000 adults without type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline enrolled in the UK Biobank. Median follow-up was just over 10 years, during which 7,262 participants developed diabetes.

Participants who ate either one, or two or more, servings of oily fish weekly each had a significant 22% lower rate of incident type 2 diabetes than that of those who ate no oily fish, after adjustment for multiple confounders. Those who reported regularly taking a fish oil supplement had a significant 9% lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than that of those who didn’t.
 

Evidence growing to add oily fish to diet to prevent type 2 diabetes

“Many current dietary guidelines recommend consumption of two servings of fish, preferably oily, per week, primarily based on cardiovascular benefits,” Dr. Qi said in an interview.

“No prior statements recommended oily fish for prevention of type 2 diabetes,” he explained, adding: “Our findings support future recommendations, but the evidence is not strong enough to make a [formal] recommendation now. We need evidence from clinical trials.”

Jason Wu, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in this field but was not involved with the current study, said it “is a very well-conducted study, and certainly generates important new evidence supporting the potential benefits of regular consumption of oily fish.”

But he agrees that the evidence remains too preliminary for any official recommendations on eating oily fish for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes, including targeting advice to high-risk subgroups such as those with prediabetes or people who are obese.

Before any groups make recommendations, “we need to thoroughly review all the literature in this space to appraise the overall body of evidence,” Dr. Wu noted in an interview.
 

Oily fish: Solid evidence for prevention of CVD events

In contrast, the case for including oily fish in the diet to prevent CVD events seems settled. In 2018, a panel assembled by the American Heart Association to address the issue released a statement that concluded: “Current scientific evidence strongly supports the recommendation that seafood be an integral component of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.” It added that “a large body of evidence supports the recommendation to consume nonfried seafood, especially species higher in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, one to two times per week for cardiovascular benefits, including reduced risk of cardiac death, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke.”

The statement highlighted that “cold-water oily fish such as salmon, anchovies, herring, mackerel (Atlantic and Pacific), tuna (bluefin and albacore), and sardines have the highest levels” of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, notably eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, also collectively known as omega-3 fatty acids.

These fish types were among the oily fishes tallied in the UK Biobank data used by Dr. Qi and colleagues.

The case for fish oil supplements for preventing CVD events is much rockier, as summarized in a 2019 editorial, with some studies reporting no discernible effect while others indicate efficacy.

A second commentary from December 2020 highlighted how results from the REDUCE-IT trial showed clear benefit for preventing CVD using a highly purified form of fish oil, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin). However, findings from two other recent reports, the STRENGTH and OMENI studies, failed to show CVD benefits from more conventional fish oil formulations.
 

Composite CVD and diabetes prevention effects?

The new findings by Dr. Qi and colleagues “highlight the need to specifically test the effect of fish oil supplements on glucose metabolism in people who cannot or choose not to regularly eat oily fish,” said Dr. Wu, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia.

“If eventually there is really strong evidence that fish, fish oil, or both have independent effects on both CVD and type 2 diabetes” it would be reasonable to integrate both outcomes into a single, composite, efficacy endpoint for the purpose of future studies, he added.

Dr. Qi agreed on both points. “A randomized, controlled trial of fish oil on type 2 diabetes as a primary outcome is needed. Most existing data are based on secondary analyses in the randomized trials for CVD,” he explained.

But, he added, “our results suggest a potential beneficial effect from fish oil supplements,” which implies that these may be “better than nothing” for people who can’t add oily fish to their regular diet.

The means by which fish and fish oil might slow or stop progression to type 2 diabetes remains uncertain.

The mechanisms for preventing both diabetes and CVD events may overlap, Dr. Qi noted, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved insulin sensitivity, both of which have been observed in animal studies.

Evidence is “still lacking from human studies,” he explained, but if such mechanisms were at play, Dr. Wu said that would “add biologic plausibility” to a possible causal link between oily fish consumption and diabetes prevention. 

“But we can’t assume that omega-3 fatty acids alone will have the same effect as oily fish, which obviously contains many other components.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Qi and Dr. Wu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who report regularly eating oily fish had a significantly reduced risk for developing type 2 diabetes in a prospective, observational study of nearly 400,000 UK residents.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The results also show a significant, but weaker, positive link between regular use of fish oil supplements and a drop in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, Qibin Qi, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Diabetes Care. Their analysis failed to show a significant link between consumption of non-oily fish and type 2 diabetes onset.

The study is notable for being “the largest so far” to examine the link between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence, and the first to establish a clear, significant association between regularly eating oily fish and a drop in the incidence of diabetes, said Dr. Qi, an epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

“At present, it is prudent to recommend fresh oily fish as a part of a healthy dietary pattern instead of fish oil supplements for diabetes prevention,” said Dr. Qi and coauthors.

The study included just over 392,000 adults without type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline enrolled in the UK Biobank. Median follow-up was just over 10 years, during which 7,262 participants developed diabetes.

Participants who ate either one, or two or more, servings of oily fish weekly each had a significant 22% lower rate of incident type 2 diabetes than that of those who ate no oily fish, after adjustment for multiple confounders. Those who reported regularly taking a fish oil supplement had a significant 9% lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than that of those who didn’t.
 

Evidence growing to add oily fish to diet to prevent type 2 diabetes

“Many current dietary guidelines recommend consumption of two servings of fish, preferably oily, per week, primarily based on cardiovascular benefits,” Dr. Qi said in an interview.

“No prior statements recommended oily fish for prevention of type 2 diabetes,” he explained, adding: “Our findings support future recommendations, but the evidence is not strong enough to make a [formal] recommendation now. We need evidence from clinical trials.”

Jason Wu, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in this field but was not involved with the current study, said it “is a very well-conducted study, and certainly generates important new evidence supporting the potential benefits of regular consumption of oily fish.”

But he agrees that the evidence remains too preliminary for any official recommendations on eating oily fish for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes, including targeting advice to high-risk subgroups such as those with prediabetes or people who are obese.

Before any groups make recommendations, “we need to thoroughly review all the literature in this space to appraise the overall body of evidence,” Dr. Wu noted in an interview.
 

Oily fish: Solid evidence for prevention of CVD events

In contrast, the case for including oily fish in the diet to prevent CVD events seems settled. In 2018, a panel assembled by the American Heart Association to address the issue released a statement that concluded: “Current scientific evidence strongly supports the recommendation that seafood be an integral component of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.” It added that “a large body of evidence supports the recommendation to consume nonfried seafood, especially species higher in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, one to two times per week for cardiovascular benefits, including reduced risk of cardiac death, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke.”

The statement highlighted that “cold-water oily fish such as salmon, anchovies, herring, mackerel (Atlantic and Pacific), tuna (bluefin and albacore), and sardines have the highest levels” of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, notably eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, also collectively known as omega-3 fatty acids.

These fish types were among the oily fishes tallied in the UK Biobank data used by Dr. Qi and colleagues.

The case for fish oil supplements for preventing CVD events is much rockier, as summarized in a 2019 editorial, with some studies reporting no discernible effect while others indicate efficacy.

A second commentary from December 2020 highlighted how results from the REDUCE-IT trial showed clear benefit for preventing CVD using a highly purified form of fish oil, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin). However, findings from two other recent reports, the STRENGTH and OMENI studies, failed to show CVD benefits from more conventional fish oil formulations.
 

Composite CVD and diabetes prevention effects?

The new findings by Dr. Qi and colleagues “highlight the need to specifically test the effect of fish oil supplements on glucose metabolism in people who cannot or choose not to regularly eat oily fish,” said Dr. Wu, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia.

“If eventually there is really strong evidence that fish, fish oil, or both have independent effects on both CVD and type 2 diabetes” it would be reasonable to integrate both outcomes into a single, composite, efficacy endpoint for the purpose of future studies, he added.

Dr. Qi agreed on both points. “A randomized, controlled trial of fish oil on type 2 diabetes as a primary outcome is needed. Most existing data are based on secondary analyses in the randomized trials for CVD,” he explained.

But, he added, “our results suggest a potential beneficial effect from fish oil supplements,” which implies that these may be “better than nothing” for people who can’t add oily fish to their regular diet.

The means by which fish and fish oil might slow or stop progression to type 2 diabetes remains uncertain.

The mechanisms for preventing both diabetes and CVD events may overlap, Dr. Qi noted, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved insulin sensitivity, both of which have been observed in animal studies.

Evidence is “still lacking from human studies,” he explained, but if such mechanisms were at play, Dr. Wu said that would “add biologic plausibility” to a possible causal link between oily fish consumption and diabetes prevention. 

“But we can’t assume that omega-3 fatty acids alone will have the same effect as oily fish, which obviously contains many other components.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Qi and Dr. Wu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who report regularly eating oily fish had a significantly reduced risk for developing type 2 diabetes in a prospective, observational study of nearly 400,000 UK residents.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The results also show a significant, but weaker, positive link between regular use of fish oil supplements and a drop in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, Qibin Qi, PhD, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Diabetes Care. Their analysis failed to show a significant link between consumption of non-oily fish and type 2 diabetes onset.

The study is notable for being “the largest so far” to examine the link between fish consumption and type 2 diabetes incidence, and the first to establish a clear, significant association between regularly eating oily fish and a drop in the incidence of diabetes, said Dr. Qi, an epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

“At present, it is prudent to recommend fresh oily fish as a part of a healthy dietary pattern instead of fish oil supplements for diabetes prevention,” said Dr. Qi and coauthors.

The study included just over 392,000 adults without type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease at baseline enrolled in the UK Biobank. Median follow-up was just over 10 years, during which 7,262 participants developed diabetes.

Participants who ate either one, or two or more, servings of oily fish weekly each had a significant 22% lower rate of incident type 2 diabetes than that of those who ate no oily fish, after adjustment for multiple confounders. Those who reported regularly taking a fish oil supplement had a significant 9% lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than that of those who didn’t.
 

Evidence growing to add oily fish to diet to prevent type 2 diabetes

“Many current dietary guidelines recommend consumption of two servings of fish, preferably oily, per week, primarily based on cardiovascular benefits,” Dr. Qi said in an interview.

“No prior statements recommended oily fish for prevention of type 2 diabetes,” he explained, adding: “Our findings support future recommendations, but the evidence is not strong enough to make a [formal] recommendation now. We need evidence from clinical trials.”

Jason Wu, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who specializes in this field but was not involved with the current study, said it “is a very well-conducted study, and certainly generates important new evidence supporting the potential benefits of regular consumption of oily fish.”

But he agrees that the evidence remains too preliminary for any official recommendations on eating oily fish for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes, including targeting advice to high-risk subgroups such as those with prediabetes or people who are obese.

Before any groups make recommendations, “we need to thoroughly review all the literature in this space to appraise the overall body of evidence,” Dr. Wu noted in an interview.
 

Oily fish: Solid evidence for prevention of CVD events

In contrast, the case for including oily fish in the diet to prevent CVD events seems settled. In 2018, a panel assembled by the American Heart Association to address the issue released a statement that concluded: “Current scientific evidence strongly supports the recommendation that seafood be an integral component of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.” It added that “a large body of evidence supports the recommendation to consume nonfried seafood, especially species higher in long-chain n-3 fatty acids, one to two times per week for cardiovascular benefits, including reduced risk of cardiac death, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke.”

The statement highlighted that “cold-water oily fish such as salmon, anchovies, herring, mackerel (Atlantic and Pacific), tuna (bluefin and albacore), and sardines have the highest levels” of long-chain n-3 fatty acids, notably eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, also collectively known as omega-3 fatty acids.

These fish types were among the oily fishes tallied in the UK Biobank data used by Dr. Qi and colleagues.

The case for fish oil supplements for preventing CVD events is much rockier, as summarized in a 2019 editorial, with some studies reporting no discernible effect while others indicate efficacy.

A second commentary from December 2020 highlighted how results from the REDUCE-IT trial showed clear benefit for preventing CVD using a highly purified form of fish oil, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin). However, findings from two other recent reports, the STRENGTH and OMENI studies, failed to show CVD benefits from more conventional fish oil formulations.
 

Composite CVD and diabetes prevention effects?

The new findings by Dr. Qi and colleagues “highlight the need to specifically test the effect of fish oil supplements on glucose metabolism in people who cannot or choose not to regularly eat oily fish,” said Dr. Wu, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Newtown, Australia.

“If eventually there is really strong evidence that fish, fish oil, or both have independent effects on both CVD and type 2 diabetes” it would be reasonable to integrate both outcomes into a single, composite, efficacy endpoint for the purpose of future studies, he added.

Dr. Qi agreed on both points. “A randomized, controlled trial of fish oil on type 2 diabetes as a primary outcome is needed. Most existing data are based on secondary analyses in the randomized trials for CVD,” he explained.

But, he added, “our results suggest a potential beneficial effect from fish oil supplements,” which implies that these may be “better than nothing” for people who can’t add oily fish to their regular diet.

The means by which fish and fish oil might slow or stop progression to type 2 diabetes remains uncertain.

The mechanisms for preventing both diabetes and CVD events may overlap, Dr. Qi noted, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved insulin sensitivity, both of which have been observed in animal studies.

Evidence is “still lacking from human studies,” he explained, but if such mechanisms were at play, Dr. Wu said that would “add biologic plausibility” to a possible causal link between oily fish consumption and diabetes prevention. 

“But we can’t assume that omega-3 fatty acids alone will have the same effect as oily fish, which obviously contains many other components.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Qi and Dr. Wu have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

Adults who eat three slices of white bread daily have a significantly increased risk for dying from cardiovascular causes.

MikeyGen73/Getty Images

That’s one finding from an assessment of a more than 137,000 people in 21 countries that documented a clear link between a high level of consumption of refined grains and a significantly increased risk for death from any cause or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event during a median follow-up of 9.5 years.

The results showed that people who reported eating at least 350 g (seven servings) of refined grain daily had a significant 29% increased risk of either death or a major CVD event (MI, stroke, or heart failure), compared with those who consumed less than one serving per day (fewer than 50 g) of refined grain after adjustment for multiple potential confounders, according to a report from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study published in the BMJ on Feb. 3, 2021.

The analysis also showed no significant association between levels of whole grains or white rice in the diet and CVD events. Rice was considered a separate grain in the analysis because nearly two-thirds of the PURE study population reside in Asia, where rice is a staple food.

The findings show that “reduction in the quantity of refined grains and sugar, and improvement in the quality of carbohydrates is essential for better health outcomes, although we do not suggest complete elimination of refined grains,” said Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, lead investigator for this report and a researcher in nutrition epidemiology at the Population Health Research Institute of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
 

‘Widely applicable’ results from large, diverse study

Although prior evidence had already shown the CVD risk from eating larger amounts of refined grains, “our findings are robust and more widely applicable because our large study recorded over 9,000 deaths and 3,500 major CVD events across a broad range of refined grain intake, and in a variety of different settings and cultures with varying dietary patterns,” Dr. Dehghan said in an interview.

“This is an important paper, with the strength of data from diverse countries. The associations are robust,” commented Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, professor and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston, who was not involved in the new report.

“The public and the public health community think about added sugar in food as harmful, but starch has gotten a free pass,” he said in an interview. Recently revised U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that refined grains constitute less than half of a person’s carbohydrate consumption, but that limitation remains set too high, Dr. Mozaffarian cautioned. A much safer daily consumption limit would cap refined grains to no more than one serving a day.

The data for the current PURE analysis came from more than 148,000 people aged 35-70 years at entry in 21 geographically and economically diverse countries. Excluding patients with known CVD at baseline left a cohort of 137,130 people.

The results showed no significant association between the quantity of whole grains consumed and the main outcome, nor a link between higher amounts of white rice consumption and the main outcome.

“Our findings suggest that intake of up to 350 g of cooked rice daily may not pose a significant health risk,” said Dr. Dehghan.

Refined grains produce a glucose surge

Dr. Dehghan and associates speculated that possible explanations for their findings are that “varieties of rice such as long-grain rice and especially parboiled white rice may have both a definite glycemic advantage and an overall nutritional advantage over refined wheat products. Also, depending on the culture and the nature of the rice eaten, rice may be displacing less desirable foods.”

In contrast, refined grains undergo “rapid action by digestive enzymes and quick absorption from the small intestines [that] could lead to an increase in postprandial blood glucose concentrations. The rise in glucose concentrations increases the insulin concentrations, which leads to hypoglycemia, lipolysis, and the stimulation of hunger and food intake,” the authors wrote.

“It’s similar to eating sugar, or candy,” noted Dr. Mozaffarian, as refined grain “is 100% glucose.” Whole grains differ by entering the gut packaged in cell structures that slow digestion and avoid delivering sugar in an unnaturally rapid way.

“We are providing new evidence, and we hope that dietary guidelines in North America encourage individuals to lower their refined grain and sugar intake,” Dr. Dehghan said.

PURE has received partial funding with unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Dehghan had no disclosures. Dr. Mozaffarian has been an adviser to or has received personal fees from several food companies, but had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]